Allowed

Krishnaveni v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Nov 2024HCP/2244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking to quash a preventive detention order passed by the Police Commissioner under Act 14 of 1982. The judgment held that mere registration of criminal cases is insufficient for preventive detention, emphasizing that such draconian laws must only be invoked sparingly when there is a genuine risk to public order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu Surya is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement is required for another case.

Krishnaveni Vs the Additional Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2244 of 2024

Krishnaveni

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai,

¶12

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

¶13

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶15

Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Adyar District. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the Impugned Order of Detention passed by the second respondent in No.831/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 09.08.2024 and set aside the same and

¶18

Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶20

consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Surya, Son of Nagarajan aged about 24 years, petitioner's son now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thompson For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶24

The order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings No.831/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 09.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶25

5 previous cases are relied on for the purpose of issuing the impugned order of detention. The ground case was registered in J3 Guindy Police Station in Crime No.272 of 2024 under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311, 324, 125, 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶26

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would object by stating that the detenue is a habitual offender and series of theft cases are

¶27

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶29

registered against him.

¶30

Mere registration of a criminal case would be insufficient to invoke preventive detention law. Preventive detention law being dreconian, must be invoked sparingly, whereby the detaining authority subjectively satisfied that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order. In order to detain a person, Act 14 of 1982 cannot be invoked and the Courts have ruled that the Preventive Detention Law causing infringement of the fundamental right of the citizen, it must be invoked cautiously and only in deserving cases. Number of criminal cases would not satisfy the element of breach of public disorder. The subjective satisfaction must be reached by the authoity, so as to form such an opinion.

¶31

In the present case, no doubt theft cases were filed and those cases can be dealt with by police authorities under the regular penal law. Police instead of punishing a person, cannot invoke Act 14 of 1982.

¶32

That being the factum, the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.831/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 09.08.2024, is

¶33

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶35

hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Surya, Son of Nagarajan aged about 24 years, petitioner's son now

¶36

confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶37

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

¶38

04.11.2024

¶39

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No gd

¶40

Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶42

¶43

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

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

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶46

4.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Adyar District.

¶47

5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.

¶48

6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶49

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

HCP.No.2244 of 2024

¶51

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶52

¶53

H.C.P.No.2244 of 2024

¶54

04.11.2024

¶55

Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Krishnaveni v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaveni v. the Additional Chief Secretary to 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

M.Prabhu Vs The Union of India

T.Suresh Vs The Union of India

Senthil Kumar Vs The Union of India