Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.O.C. No. 19/2024 dated 14.05.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenue Sathiyaseelan aged 23 years son of Sakthivel now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before his Court and set him at liberty.
1. 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 adverse case relied on by the detaining Authority has been registered by Mayiladuthurai Police Station in Crime No. 393 of 2023 under Sections 294 (b), 324, 506 (ii) @ 294(b), 324, 326, 506(ii) of IPC.
3. The date of occurrence of the ground case was on 25.05.2023. The detention order has been passed in proceedings dated 14.05.2024, after a lapse of about one year from the date of registration of adverse case. The ground case was registered in Crime No. 161/2024 by Mayiladuthurai Police Station.
4. The detaining Authority states that the detenue ha
Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.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 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 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 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 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 orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
Inordinate delays in detention orders can invalidate them if they sever the link between the grounds for detention and the purpose of detention.
Preventive detention requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention cases is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
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
