Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Rajaselvi – 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. 46/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 Bharathiraja, S/o. Babu, aged 24 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. 942/2019, 1151/2021, 278/2023, 686/2023 and 272/2024 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
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus and proximity between adverse cases and the likelihood of public disorder; lack of such connection can lead to quashing of the detention 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Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.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.
Unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is a crucial factor in assessing the validity of preventive detention orders.
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....
The revocation of a detention order by the Competent Authority nullifies the basis for a Habeas Corpus Petition, leading to its dismissal.
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.
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
