Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Pushparaj – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.20/2024 dated 14.05.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenue Nagaraj aged 27 years son of Pushparaj now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The ground case was registered in Crime No.161/2024 by Mayiladuthurai Police Station.
3. The detaining Authority states that the detenue had not filed any bail application for the ground case registered against him. However a similar case in Crime No.1278/2020, bail was granted by the District & Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.MP.No.3089/2020. The comparison made by the Detaining Authority about the similar case of the year 2020 would be insufficient to form an opinion that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order at this length of
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Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.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 requires a clear nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.
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 demonstrate a clear nexus and proximity to adverse cases to justify the detention; lack of such connection can lead to quashing of the order.
Preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 requires the detaining authority to demonstrate subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of detention to maintain public order, and pro....
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus and proximity between adverse cases and the likelihood of public disorder; lack of such connection can lead to quashing of the detention order.
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of registered criminal cases; there must be a clear and present danger to public order.
Inordinate delays in detention orders can invalidate them if they sever the link between the grounds for detention and the purpose of detention.
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
