S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Bargath – 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 relating to the detention order vide no. 45/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 14.05.2024, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Alla Bakash, S/o. Masthan, aged 22 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal) before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.05.2024 is sought to be assailed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The Special Report submitted by the sponsoring Authority is un-dated. That apart the adverse cases relied on with reference to Crime Nos.1294/2021, 19/2022 and 719/2022 have no close proximity. To establish likelihood of causing breach of public order, there must be a proximity with the adverse cases, which all are relied on by the detaining Authority. Certain old cases, which were pending for a long time alone cannot be a ground to invoke Act 14 of 1982. Nexus link and proximity of relied on cases are of paramount importance for the purpose of forming a
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Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.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.
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 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 must be justified by an immediate threat to public safety, and prolonged detention without such justification is unlawful.
Unexplained delay in issuing a detention order can break the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the detention order invalid.
Unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is a crucial factor in assessing the validity of preventive detention orders.
Unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can sever the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention, leading to the order being set aside.
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.