நம்ம நவனீத கிருஷ்ணன் / full order of hcp bench Learned Senior counsel submits that though Pesala case may not turn on this point, nonetheless the principle set out therein would enure to his benefit in his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order qua captioned HCP. 6. Considering the point raised, we deem it appropriate to suo-motu implead Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi – 110 001. We do so. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi – 110 001 shall now be sixth respondent. Registry to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the case file. 7. Absent prescription by Parliament impugned preventive detention order does not pass muster in a Constitutional Court qua a habeas legal drill is learned Senior counsel’s say. 8. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks. 9. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for respondents 1 to 5. Mr.A.Raja Perumal, learned counsel on record for petitioner is permitted to serve on learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan as regards sixth respondent. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly. [M.S.J.,] [R.S.V.J.,] 26.09.2023 mk M.SUNDAR, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J. mk H.C.P.No.1862 of 2023 26.09.2023
H.C.P.No.1862 of 2023
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,)
Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 19.09.2023 inter alia assailing a ‘detention order dated 12.07.2023 bearing reference C.O.C.No.47/2023’ [hereinafter ‘impugned preventive detention order’ for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] made by ‘second respondent’ [hereinafter ‘Detaining Authority’ for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. To be noted, mother of the detenu is the petitioner.
3. Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Pandi Thennavan, counsel on record for petitioner (Instructed by Mr.A.Raja Perumal, counsel on record) is before us. Learned Senior counsel submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)’ [hereinafter ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity] in Crime No.403 of 2023 on the file of Mannargudi Town Police Station.
4. The aforementioned impugned preventive detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of ‘The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)’ [hereinafter ‘Act 14 of 1982’ for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5. Learned Senior counsel, adverting to Sub-clauses (4) and (7) of Article 22 of Constitution of India submits that any preventive detention, if it is to operate for over three months, the same would be permissible only when the maximum period for which any person in any class or classes of cases can be detained under preventive detention law is prescribed by Parliament. To state with specificity, learned Senior counsel places reliance on clauses (4)(b) read with (7)(a) and (7)(b) of Article 22 of Constitution of India. Learned Senior counsel also placed before us a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court being judgment dated 16.08.2023 rendered in SLP (Criminal) No.9492 of 2023 [Pesala Nookaraju Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others]. Learned Senior counsel submits that though Pesala case may not turn on this point, nonetheless the principle set out therein would enure to his benefit in his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order qua captioned HCP.
6. Considering the point raised, we deem it appropriate to suo-motu implead Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi – 110 001. We do so. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi – 110 001 shall now be sixth respondent. Registry to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the case file.
7. Absent prescription by Parliament impugned preventive detention order does not pass muster in a Constitutional Court qua a habeas legal drill is learned Senior counsel’s say.
8. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
9. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for respondents 1 to 5. Mr.A.Raja Perumal, learned counsel on record for petitioner is permitted to serve on learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan as regards sixth respondent.
List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.
[M.S.J.,] [R.S.V.J.,]
26.09.2023
mk
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
mk
H.C.P.No.1862 of 2023
26.09.2023
