Mother filed Habeas Corpus petition to quash detention order under TN Goondas Act. Court quashed order and directed release due to non-supply of bail applications in similar cases to detenu, violating Article 22(5).
Detention order quashed; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless presence required in another case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
H.C.P.No.2269 of 2014 Sivagami ..Petitioner/ mother of the detenue Vs 1.State of tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009
2.The Commissioner of Police, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ..Respondents
Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 01.08.2014 made in detention order Memo No.859/BDFGISSV/2014 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son Maavu @ Vijayachandran, Son of Gajendran, aged about 26 years, branded as Goonda, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.V.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor . ORDER
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Maavu @ Vijayachandran, S/o Gajendran, aged 26 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BDFGISSV No.859/2014 dated 01.08.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Prison, Puzhal Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.
Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.
“7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case.” (Emphasis added).”
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vsi
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-supply of copies of bail applications in similar cases to the detenu vitiates the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982
Whether the failure to supply such documents denies the detenu the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶17
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) · Who else cites this
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶19
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sivagami
State of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Police
M.Jaichandren
Aruna Jagadeesan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.Jaichandren and Aruna Jagadeesan
Parties & counsel
