S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Periyanayagamary – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 28.06.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings memo D.O. No. C2/18/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Iruthayaraj, S/o. Agastiyan, aged 39 years before this High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.
1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his office D.O. No. C2/18/2024 dated 28.06.2024, 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 four days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during whic
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.
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 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....
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 and procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for expeditious c....
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....
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention cases is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty under Article 21.
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.