Allowed

Sugumar v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC2 Nov 2020HCP/1384/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition and quashed a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that failure to substantiate the service of arrest intimation to the detenu's family deprived him of the right to make effective representations, vitiating the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 29.02.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Sugumar Vs the Secretary to the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.11.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P. No.1384 of 2020

¶6

Sugumar ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
5. Inspector of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu District. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
in connection with the order of detention passed by the second
respondent dated 29.02.2020 in BCDFGISSSV No.04/2020 against the
petitioner's son Poochi @ Rathinam @ Rathinasabapathy, male,
aged 25 years, S/o.Sugumar, who is confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him
at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, : Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

ORDER

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶11

The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Poochi @ Rathinam @ Rathinasabapathy, male, aged 25 years, S/o.Sugumar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.04/2020, dated 29.02.2020, holding to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶12

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶13

3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No.187 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the family member of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the family member of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.

¶14

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the family member of the detenu through SMS. However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.

¶15

5.As evidenced from the document in page No.187 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the family member of the detenu through SMS but no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶18

6.It is a 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 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. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶19

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.04/2020 dated 29.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Poochi @ Rathinam @ Rathinasabapathy, male, aged 25 years, S/o.Sugumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66. 5. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Chengalpattu District. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No.1384 of 2020 RP(CO) RV(01/12/2020)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sugumar v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugumar v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Vs the Secretary to the Government

Mageshwari Vs the Secretary to the Government

Nagaraj Vs the Secretary to Government

Swaminathan Vs State Rep by

Durga Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mariammal Vs Apurva Varma IAS