S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Sugunasri – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and 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 or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 13.09.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.76/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Siranjeevi @ Appuchi @ Partha @ Parthasarathi, S/o.Ravikannan, aged 27 years before this Hon'ble High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty.)
The order of detention passed by the 2 nd respondent in proceedings C.No.76/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024, dated 13.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority is dissimilar. The bail in the similar case was granted under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and the same is statutory bail. Thus, reliance placed by the detaini
Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another
Preventive detention orders must be based on rational and relevant grounds; reliance on dissimilar cases without proper justification constitutes a failure to apply mind, rendering the order invalid.
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 the detaining authority to apply its mind and provide a rational basis for its decision, rather than relying on mere assertions or dissimilar cases.
Preventive detention requires a rational basis and application of mind by the Detaining Authority, which was absent in this case.
Preventive detention orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.
Preventive detention valid despite bail if authority aware of custody and provides cogent reasons for release likelihood and prejudicial risk; absent here due to non-similar case reliance.
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.
A detention order relying on non-similar bail order is invalid for non-application of mind.
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.