Allowed

S.Paramasivam v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Oct 2020HCP/705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of his son under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court set aside the order due to non-application of mind and failure by the detaining authority to furnish proof that arrest intimation was effectively communicated to the detenu's family.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in Memo No.65/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 05.02.2020 set aside and detenu directed to be released forthwith.

S.Paramasivam Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P. No. 705 of 2020

S. Paramasivam

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.State of Tamilnadu

Rep by Additional Chief Secretary to Government

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Vepery, Chennai 600 007 ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ and call for records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 05.02.2020 in Memo No.65/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner's son / Detenu Venkatesh S/o. Paramasivam, Hindu aged about 23 years who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Devaraj

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Venkatesh,

¶18

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

¶19

S/o. Paramasivam, Hindu aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.65/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 05.02.2020, 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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. 57 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

5.As evidenced from the document in page No.57 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 and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶24

6.It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.65/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 05.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Venkatesh S/o. Paramasivam, Hindu aged about 23 yearsis directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

mmi/ssm

¶33

¶34

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

¶35

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

¶36

Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶37

2.The Commissioner of Police

¶38

Greater Chennai,

¶39

Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Vepery,

¶40

Chennai 600 007.

¶41

3.The Superintendent,

¶42

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶43

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶44

5.The Public Prosecutor,

¶45

High Court, Madras.

¶46

H.C.P. No. 705 of 2020

¶47

SSI(CO)

¶48

RMP(21/10/2020)

¶49

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

S.Paramasivam v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Paramasivam v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Kasthuri Vs Union of India

Revathi Vs the Secretary to Government

Subramanian Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shabiya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sudarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Varalakshmi @ Kokila Vs the Secretary to Govt