Habeas corpus petition filed by Arumugam challenging detention order for non-supply of copy of bail application from a similar case. Court held omission vitiated the order violating Article 22(5), quashed detention, and directed release.
Impugned detention order set aside; 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: 06.02.2015
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jaichandren and
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Aruna Jagadeesan
H.C.P. No.3421 of 2014
Arumugam .. Petitioner /
Detenue
vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept.,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Greater Chennai
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief as stated therein.
pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus call for the records relatng to the detenue's detention order passed by the 2nd respondnet dated 16.4.2014 in No.548/BDFGISSV/2014 and set aside the same and produce the detenue Arumugam son of Chandran aged about 31 years now detained in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu, namely, Arumugam, son of Chandran, aged about 31 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.548/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 16.4.2014, 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)the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central 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.
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/
gs.
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept.,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison II Puzhal,
Chennai
4. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order) Fort Saint George,
Chennai-9
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras
HCP.No.3421/2014
BR (CO)
kk 9/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether non-supply of the copy of the bail application filed in a similar case to the detenu vitiates the detention order.
Whether deprivation of the right to access such vital documents amounts to a denial of the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
Whether the impugned detention order under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 liable to be quashed in view of the non-supply of the bail application copy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and anotherRelied on¶19
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) · Who else cites this
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶20
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arumugam
The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept., Chennai-9
The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Greater Chennai Chennai
M. Jaichandren
Aruna Jagadeesan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
