Sangeetha v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Sangeetha W/o Senthil Kumar ..
Petitioner v.
1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai-66
4. The Inspector of Police P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station Chennai ..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order 788/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 23.07.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Senthil Kumar, Son of Manoharan, aged about 42 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 before this Hon'ble Court set him at liberty. For Petitioner ::
Mr.G.Vinodhkumar For Respondents ::
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, viz., Senthil Kumar, S/o Manoharan, aged 42 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.788/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 23.07.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Based on the ground case, the detention order has been passed. The
ground case was initially registered under Section 307 IPC and subsequently altered to Section 302 IPC. The detenu caused injuries to a woman on account of certain disputes as neighbours. This alleged offence committed due to personal vengeance would not fall under the category of causing public disorder. The case registered under IPC offence can be dealt with under the penal law. The definition of 'public order' has been well enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. Therefore, the detaining authority must arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order before invoking the preventive detention law. The preventive detention law being draconian, its casual invocation would infringe the personal liberty of a citizen.
The Courts have repeatedly held that the Act must be invoked sparingly only where the authority has subjectively satisfied that there is a likelihood of causing public disorder. In the present case, the ground case alone resulted in issuance of the impugned detention order and in our opinion, it would be insufficient and the ground case can be dealt with under the law of the land. Thus we are inclined to interfere.
4. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.788/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 23.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Senthil Kumar, S/o Manoharan, aged 42 years, now 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.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 04.11.2024 ss To
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss 04.11.2024