S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Kamala – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024 on the file of 2nd respondent herein to set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue i.e., the body of Ramachandran, S/o. Kanniyappan, male, aged about 42 years the detenue detained Under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024 herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the fact as narrated would reveal that, there is a delay of six days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during which the detenu was under detention would be construed as violation of the Constitutional mandatory
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.
The court established that delays in considering detenu representations violate Article 22, necessitating prompt action to uphold personal liberty.
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention cases violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration violate constitutional rights, rendering detention illegal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation of the government to consider representations without delay, emphasizing the history of insistence on procedural s....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation and procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for expeditious c....
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties as mandated by the Constitution.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
Unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation can vitiate the detention order, citing procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.