S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Padma @ Padrakali – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, 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, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in No.111/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 29.07.2024 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal ad improper and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Mr.Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Vetrivel aged about 38 years, now confined and kept in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 29.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 20.05.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.07.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta K
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration violate constitutional rights, rendering detention illegal.
Unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing a detention order can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders violate personal liberty and render such orders invalid.
Unexplained delay in preventive detention orders can invalidate the detention due to the severance of the necessary link between grounds and purpose.
Inordinate delay in passing a preventive detention order after arrest invalidates the order due to the absence of a live link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Inordinate delay in issuing a detention order after arrest disrupts the required connection between grounds and purpose, rendering the order invalid.
Unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing a detention order can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Inordinate delay in detention order issuance can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Unexplained and inordinate delay in passing a detention order can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between the grounds and purpose of detention.
The court established that delays in considering detenu representations violate Article 22, necessitating prompt action to uphold personal liberty.
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.