Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
J. Illamalli – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No. 68/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 16.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely J.Veerakumar, S/o. Jeyakumar, aged 30 years, GOONDA now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Court and set at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.05.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Special report served on the detenue is undated.
3. The similar case relied on by the detaining Authority, which is dated 02.01.2024 in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2024 reveals that it is a case where statutory bail has been granted. The detaining Authority formed an opinion that the detenue was arrested and remanded by T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime Nos.129 of 2024 and 130 of 2024. He has not filed any bail petition sofar. However, the sponsoring Authority has stated that one Mr. J.Veerakumar'
Preventive detention must be justified by a direct and proximate connection to the likelihood of a breach of public order; reliance on remote past cases is insufficient.
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear and immediate threat to public order, and reliance on remote past cases is insufficient to uphold such detention.
Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on rational and relevant grounds; reliance on dissimilar cases without proper justification constitutes a failure to apply mind, rendering the order invalid.
Preventive detention requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear and justifiable connection between the individual's actions and a threat to public order, beyond merely having a criminal case registered against them.
Preventive detention orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to apply its mind and provide a rational basis for its decision, rather than relying on mere assertions or dissimilar cases.
Procedural lapses in preventive detention, such as delays in representation consideration, infringe on personal liberty and invalidate detention orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
