Petitioner challenged detention of her son under Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, alleging non-application of mind by detaining authority regarding bail attempts. Court quashed order finding violation of procedural law under Article 21.
Detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless 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 : 14.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
H.C.P.No.2250 of 2015
Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector &
District Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.38/2015-C2 dated 13.07.2015 against the petitioner's son Karuna @ Karunakaran, male aged 23 years, son of Baskar, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in D.O.No.38/2015-C2 dated 13.07.2015, whereby the detenu/petitioner's son, viz. Karuna @ Karunamakaran, Son of Baskar, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slumhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda”.
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.D.Balaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case in Cr.No.352/2015 and adverse cases in Cr.Nos.133/2014, 137/2014, 153/2014, 419/2014, 420/2014, 12/2015, 66/2015, 130/2015, 146/2015, 279/2015 and 280/2015 as on the date of passing of the detention order. But the Detaining Authority, in the Grounds of Detention, has stated that the relatives are taking steps to file bail applications in the ground case and the adverse cases. But, the said factum has not been reflected in the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority. This is indicative of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and thus, the detention order is vitiated on the above sole ground and the same is liable to be quashed.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.
6.As evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has stated that the “Sponsoring Authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Karuna @ Karunakaran are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail applications in the ground case and adverse cases before the appropriate Court...”. But, a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, it is evident that nothing has been stated by the Sponsoring Authority to the effect of the relatives taking steps to file bail applications in the said cases and no statements of the relatives have been recorded to that effect. This is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
7.It is trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.
8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kal
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector &
District Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2250 of 2015
SV(CO)
CA(30/03/2016)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether detention order is vitiated due to non-application of mind by detaining authority regarding bail applications.
Whether preventive detention violates procedural law under Article 21 when ordinary law suffices.
Whether habeas corpus petition succeeds in quashing the impugned detention order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Selvi
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector
M. Jaichandren
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
