SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2203

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Rekha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P.No.2912 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Muthukumar
For the Respondents: Mr. R.Muniyapparaj

Preventive detention must meet statutory requirements demonstrating a likelihood of public disorder, which was not found in this case.

Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India allows for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge preventive detention orders. The court found that the detention order relied on earlier cases which lacked proximity to the ground case of attempted murder, concluding that the necessary conditions for detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 were not satisfied. The main issues revolved around the lack of evidence demonstrating the likelihood of public disorder from the detainee's actions. The court ruled that the detention order was set aside, and the detainee must be released unless required for other legal matters.

Table of Content
1. preventive detention is challenged. (Para 1)
2. court assesses the sufficiency of grounds for detention. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court orders release of the detainee. (Para 5)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.10.2024 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. The impugned detention order has been issued based on four adverse cases and the ground case.

4. The four adverse cases relied on were registered in the year

2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023 and have no proximity with the ground case. The ground case is a case of attempt of murder on account of certain personal disputes. Such nature of cases can be dealt with by the Police Authorities under the ordinary law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the element of likelihood of causing breach of public order is missing and the subjective assessment as made by the detaining Authority is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.

5. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, in proceedings No.1019/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated

04.10.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed The detenu viz., Nivaskumar @ Solai Nivas, aged 24 years, S/o. Moorthy confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

03.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda To

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

4. The Inspector of Police, K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

veda H.C.P.No.2912 of 2024

03.01.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top