Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, initially Thiru.Ravi (who died) and later substituted by Thirumathi.Amala, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent (Commissioner of Police, Avadi City) in BCDFGISSSV-No.172/2024 dated 02.10.2024. The detenue was Appanraj @ Appan, son of Ravi, aged about 40 years, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. The detention was under Act 14 of 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982). Four adverse cases were relied upon: one registered in 2021, two in 2022 and 2023, and one ground case in Crime No.678/2024 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Two adverse cases were under the NDPS Act and two under IPC. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Arivendan, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj. The court found that the facts in the ground case were insufficient to form an opinion that there was a likelihood of breach of public order. The adverse cases could be dealt with by police under ordinary law. Therefore, preventive detention was not required. The court quashed the detention order and directed the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Public Order vs Law and Order - Insufficient Grounds - The court held that the facts in the ground case were insufficient to form an opinion that there was a likelihood of breach of public order, and the adverse cases could be dealt with under ordinary law by police authorities. The preventive detention was quashed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the facts of the ground case and adverse cases justified the preventive detention of the detenue under Act 14 of 1982 on the ground of likelihood of breach of public order.
Final Decision
The impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV-No.172/2024 dated 02.10.2024 is quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue, Appanraj @ Appan, S/o.Ravi, aged about 40 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention requires likelihood of breach of public order
- not merely law and order
- adverse cases can be dealt with under ordinary law
- facts of ground case must be sufficient to form opinion of public order threat
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 100
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Mr.M.Arivendan (for petitioner), Mr.R.Muniyapparaj (Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents)
Thiru.Ravi (Died) / Thirumathi.Amala (substituted)
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, 2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, 4.The Inspector of Police, T-3, Korattur Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Habeas Corpus Petition challenging preventive detention order under Act 14 of 1982
Remedy Sought
Quashing of detention order and release of detenue
Filing Reason
Detention order passed by second respondent on 02.10.2024 under Act 14 of 1982 based on four adverse cases and one ground case
Issues
Whether the facts in the ground case were sufficient to form an opinion of likelihood of breach of public order to justify preventive detention under Act 14 of 1982.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the detention order was not justified as the ground case facts were insufficient for public order breach.
Respondents argued through Additional Public Prosecutor in support of the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi
Preventive detention under Act 14 of 1982 requires a likelihood of breach of public order, not merely law and order issues. The facts in the ground case were insufficient to establish such a threat, and the adverse cases could be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. Therefore, the detention order was not justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The facts reveal in the ground case would be insufficient to form an opinion that there is likelihood of breach of public order.
The adverse cases can be dealt with by the Police authorities under the ordinary law and by following the procedures.
Preventive Detention in the present case may not be required and therefore, the respondents shall proceed with the criminal case registered in the manner known to law.
Procedural History
The petitioner initially filed HCP.No.2827 of 2024 challenging the detention order dated 02.10.2024. The original petitioner Thiru.Ravi died and was substituted by Thirumathi.Amala vide order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.16946/24. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 24.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 309(6), 311, 125, 324(2), 351(3)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
