Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
A. Kamala - Petitioner
Versus
The State, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. - Respondents
H.C.P. No. 1163 of 2024 and Crl. M.P. No. 8104 of 2024
Decided On : 09-08-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Iyyapparaj for Mr. T.S. Lavanesh.
For the Respondents: Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of a threat to public order; mere allegations or criticisms do not justify detention under the Act.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Section 3(1) - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Detention order quashed due to lack of sufficient grounds for public order disturbance - Detention based on delayed complaints and insufficient evidence of threat to public order - Detaining Authority failed to establish a nexus between the alleged actions and public disorder. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 30, 34, 70)
(B) Preventive Detention - The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, highlighting that any doubt must favor the detenu. (Paras 40, 41, 42)
(C) Freedom of Speech - The court reaffirmed that criticism of government actions does not constitute a threat to public order, and preventive detention laws should not be used to suppress dissent. (Paras 46, 66, 70)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of her son under the Act, arguing that the detention order was based on delayed and vague complaints, lacking evidence of public disorder. The detenu was accused of various offenses, including forgery and harassment, but the court found no substantial threat to public order.
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed due to insufficient grounds and procedural irregularities, with the court emphasizing the importance of individual freedoms and the need for a balanced approach to public order.
Issues: The main issues included whether the detention order was justified based on the alleged actions of the detenu and whether there was a legitimate threat to public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detention order lacked sufficient grounds to justify preventive detention, emphasizing that mere allegations or criticisms do not equate to a disturbance of public order.
Result: The detention order was set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released immediately.
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent on 12.05.2024 in No.495/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Shankar @ Savukku Shankar S/o. Achimuthu, aged about 48 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.]
Table of Contents
| I. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| II. | SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER |
| III. | REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS |
| IV | LEGAL POSITION |
| V. | DISCUSSIONS |
| (A) MALICE | |
| (B) BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC ORDER | |
| (C) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION | |
| (D) CRITICISM AND UNFAIR OPINION | |
| (E) SOCIAL MEDIA AND HUMAN MIND IN TANDEM WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH | |
| VI. | REGULATIONS – THE NEED OF THE HOUR |
| VII. | FREEDOM OF PRESS |
| VIII. | CONCLUSION |
I. FACTUAL MATRIX:
Under assail in the present writ petition is the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai dated 12.05.2024. Two adverse cases are relied on the impugned detention order for invoking Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred as 'Act 14 of 1982'].
2. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The Detenu was arrested on 04.05.2024 by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Coimbatore City in Crime No.123 of 2024 under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and was lodged in Central Prison at Coimbatore. On 08.05.2024, a complaint was received from Mr. Balamurugan, Superintendent Engineer in Construction Wing, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.158 of 2024 was registered under Sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 09.05.2024, the detenu was formally arrested (adverse cases) in Crime Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 and was produced before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and the remand was rejected in above cases. On 10.05.2024, the Inspector of Police / 3rd respondent formally arrested the detenu in Crime No.158 of 2024 and was remanded. The detenu filed Bail Application in Crime No.158 of 2024 and it was pending on the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate of CCB and CBCID Court at Egmore, Chennai. On 11.05.2024, the 3rd respondent submitted a proposal to detain petitioner's son Mr. Savukku Shankar (detenu) to the Detaining Authority. Consequently, the 2nd respondent / Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 12.05.2024 has passed Detention Order against detenu. The order of detention was served on the detenu at Coimbatore Central Prison along with the grounds of detention and the booklet. The petitioner mother of the detenu made representations on 14.05.2024 and 21.05.2021 to the Detention Authority, which were received on 15.05.2024 and 22.05.2024 and rejected on 16.05.2024 and 24.05.2024. Before rejection of representation dated 21.05.2024, the Government approved the Detention Order in G.O.RT.No.3093, Home Department dated 22.05.2024.
3. On 12.05.2024, the order of detention had been passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) of Act 14 of 1982 and branded the detenu as “Goonda”. The ground for the detention in Crime No.158 of 2024 under Sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 420 of IPC instituted pursuant to the complaint made Mr. Balamurugan, Superintending Engineer, CMDA alleging circulation of false documents on social media with reference to the tender process in CMDA for
