Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Premnath – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the 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, to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent in B3/D.O.No.65/2024 dated 15.08.2024 against the petitioner son Santhakumar, Male aged 25 years S/o.Premnath, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at Liberty.
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings B3/D.O.No.65/2024 dated 15.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention. He would further submit that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority is dissimilar. In the similar bail order, the bail was granted relying on the order of the Supreme Court in Suo-Motu petition (Civil) No.1 of 2020 In Re: contagion of Covid -19 Virus in prisons. Therefore, bail was granted on exceptional circumstances which cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of detaining t
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 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 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 rational and relevant grounds; reliance on dissimilar cases without proper justification constitutes a failure to apply mind, rendering the order invalid.
Preventive detention orders must be based on concrete material and timely action; delays can invalidate such orders.
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 nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.
Unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing a detention order can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between grounds and purpose of detention.
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
