S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Suganthi – 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, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No. 715/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 25.06.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Joseph S/o. Kovilpichai aged about 43 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. The preventive detention order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the second respondent is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that there was a delay in considering the representation submitted by the detenue under Act 14 of 1982.
3. Delay in considering the representation is vital, more specifically in preventive detention cases. The detention power conferred under Act is extremely powerful and that have the ability to confer arbitrary power to the State. In such circumstances, where there is a possibility of an unfattered discretion of power by the Government, the Court must ana
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention are crucial to protect individual liberties, and any delay in considering representations can invalidate detention orders.
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.
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 and prevent arbitrary state action.
The court established that delays in the consideration of representations in preventive detention cases infringe upon the right to personal liberty, necessitating strict compliance with procedural sa....
Procedural lapses in preventive detention, such as delays in representation consideration, infringe on personal liberty and invalidate detention orders.
Procedural delays in preventive detention cases infringe on personal liberty rights, necessitating strict adherence to legal protocols.
The court established that procedural delays in preventive detention cases violate constitutional rights and must be strictly scrutinized to protect individual liberties.
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.