Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.42/Goonda/Salem City/2024 dated 08.05.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenue Shanmugam @ Jambu aged 33 years s/o. Perumal is now confined in Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
The impugned order of preventive detention dated 08.05.2024 has been issued relying on a single criminal case registered under Section 302 of IPC. It would be insufficient, if a criminal case has been registered against the detenue, it must be established that such criminal cases registered would result in causing disturbance to public order.
2. In the present case, the bail also has not been granted. Likelihood of grant of bail is one of the criteria to be taken into consideration by the detaining Authority. In the absence of any such likelihood of grant of bail, invocation of Act 14 of 1982 would be improper. Therefore, registration of a criminal case alone cannot be a groun
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Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.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 direct and proximate connection to the likelihood of a breach of public order; reliance on remote past cases is insufficient.
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 cannot be justified solely on the basis of registered criminal cases; there must be a clear and present danger to public order.
The legal principle established is that the mere registration of a criminal case is insufficient for preventive detention; there must be a clear demonstration of the likelihood of public order breach....
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 requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
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
