To prevent gondosTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W. P. No. of 2023 Nirosa, (F/) W/o. S. Amar Prasad, No. 1, SAMS Enclave, Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085. …Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009. 2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W. P. No. of 2023
Nirosa, (F/)
W/o. S. Amar Prasad,
No. 1, SAMS Enclave,
Ranjith Road,
Kotturpuram,
Chennai 600 085.
…Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram.
4. The Inspector of Police, Kanathur Police Station,
Chengalpattu District
… Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER
I, Nirosa, wife of Amar Prasad, aged about years residing at
No.1, Sam’s Enclave, First Floor, B1 Flat, Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai-85, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as under:
1. I submit that I am the Petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I respectfully submit that I am filing the above writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from passing order of preventive detention against my husband by name Amar Prasad, S/o, Aditya Kumar aged about 37 years from detaining them under the Tamil Nadu Prevention Act, 1982 (Act 14/82).
3. I respectfully submit that my husband Amar Prasad Reddy is presently the State President for Youth development and Sports Cell, BJP Party which is a national political party. He also served as former advisor to Union Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare, GOI. More importantly my husband Amar Prasad Reddy is a social worker and an expert in cyber security, who has undertaken various projects in collaboration with the government of India to reduce Cybercrime and he has also received Effulgent Star of the Decade given by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016.
4. I am filing this petition since the third respondent despite my representation dated 23.10.2023 has preferred to include my husband’s name in a series of cases in various police stations as apprehended. My husband name has been presently included in the many cases as stated below in order to detain him under prevention laws.
5. I submit that I am filling this petition regarding the impending decision by Commissioner of Police, Tr. Amalraj, to pass an order of preventive detention based on a false FIR (First Information Report) filed in Cr No 164/2023. The charges listed in the FIR include offenses under Section 147, 341, 294(b), 353, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, as recorded in the files and records of Kanathur Police Station, Chennai situated within the Commissionerate of Tambaram Jurisdiction.
6. I submit that the said FIR in Crime No. 164 of 2023 alleges as if my husband instigated to deter the public servant from performing his official duty and also damaged one wind shield glass of the JCP vehicle bearing vehicle No TN 20 AR 7011, whereas, the actual fact is that my husband was not at all present in the scene of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident and he was arrested only on the next day from my residence without following any guidelines stipulated by the Supreme court in D.K Basu case. He was further remanded to judicial custody in violation to Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, 2022 (10) SCC 51 since 21 Oct 2023. The video footage records of the incident evidentially proves my husband not at all being present at the scene of occurrence during the alleged event.
7. I submit that my husband has pointed out various social evils caused by bureaucrats Particularly in Tamil Nadu and the ruling political party and in particular he was the whistle blower in the fake passport issue in Tamil Nadu, which was surfaced to be the major national security threat issue. Incidentally the then ADGP state intelligence officer, Tr. Davidson Asirvatham was too implicated in this case and hence he chose to develop animosity with my husband since this issue. Now that since he has been transferred from the powerful designation he was holding so far, he vowed to revenge my husband in connivance with his relative Tr. Amalraj ADGP who is the present commissioner of Police, Tambaram. Now that for such reasons the fake encounter and fake case cop, Tr. Amalraj, ADGP, has chosen to false prosecute my husband in this above said case with false facts based on a compliant received from Tr. Mohana Vadivelu, AEE, Chennai Corporation who has already previous records of foisting false cases against whistle blowers. Presently in furtherance to this false case in FIR in Crime No. 164 of 2023 the said Tr. Amalraj is pursuing options to foist further false cases as against my husband so as to detain him under the preventive detention laws.
8. I respectfully submit that I would like to highlight the following reasons for my request to forebear the Commissioner of Police from passing this order:
9. False FIR: There is substantial evidence to suggest that the FIR in question is false and may have been filed with malicious intent. It is essential to ensure that any preventive detention order is based on only credible and genuine information. The case is one such example wherein the de-facto complainant has preferred to selectively prosecute my husband though there are other political parties flag poles in his jurisdiction itself.
10. Violation of Personal Liberty: Preventive detention is a severe measure that infringes upon an individual’s personal liberty. It should only be imposed when there is clear evidence that the person poses a threat to public safety or security. In this case, it is vital to ascertain the accuracy of the charges before taking such a drastic step. Even the FIR does not read any use of criminal force or assault against any public officers.
11. Legal Safeguards: The decision to impose preventive detention should be made with strict adherence to legal safeguards and due process. It is crucial to ensure that the individual’s rights are protected and that the decision is in compliance with the law. The Apex court in Munagala Yadamma Vs State of A.P, 2012
(2) SCC 386 and Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra, 2008 (16) SCC 14 has specified the constitutional safe guards to be reviewed in such cases where preventive detention is opted as necessary for consideration.
12. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers, Inflammatory Writ Writers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982, Requires an independent review of the case to confirm the legitimacy of the charges before any preventive detention order is issued. This would help maintain the rule of law and safeguard individuals’ rights.
13. I beg to submit that my husband was first arrested and remanded in FIR in Crime No 164 of 2023 dated on 21.10.2023 Further since then there was an apprehension and threat that he may be implicated in further false cases to be detained under preventive detention laws for which I sent a representation dated 23.10.2023. However my representation dated 23.10.2023 was of no avail and the Respondent Police arrested my husband in judicial custody implicating him in series of cases namely that are one in Nungambakkam Police station Crime No.211 of 2022 dated 06.07.2022 for the offences under section 341 and 353 and another one in Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.257 of 2022 dated 27.07.2022 for the offenses under section 153, 505(1)(b) IPC, section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959109/2023, section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and yet another one also falsely implicating my husband in Alwarkurichi Police Station Crime No.197 of 2023 dated 05.09.2023 for offences under section 341, 286,143, 353, 268, 283 of IPC.
14. I beg to submit that therefore the apprehension in my representation is becoming real and there remains an imminent threat to my husband. I respectfully submit that my husband did not commit any such offences as mentioned in above said crime numbers, the police officials foisted false case for the reasons only to pass detention order and curtail his liberty. The action of the respondents are nothing but in line with the doctrine of chilling effect.
15. I respectfully submit that my husband filed bail petition before the Hon’ble Principal District Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the Third Respondent has taken efforts to detain my husband under preventive detention. I state that only because of political motive the Third Respondent and Fourth Respondent foisted false case against my husband.
16. I respectfully submit that now Respondents trying to detain my husband under preventive detention and the offences registered against my husband can be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land and now the Fourth Respondent creating records to detain my husband under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The facts of the cases will show that cases were of the nature of sticking bills, disobeying orders of police authority in the rank of Sub Inspector, flag pole digging and finally traffic rules and regulation violation converted to criminal case.
17. I respectfully submit that Act of the Third and Fourth Respondents are highly arbitrary and it is against the constitution, violative of Human Rights and against Principles
of Natural Justice. The Act of the Third and Fourth Respondents put my husband and my family members under mental pressure and mental agony.
18. I respectfully submit that the cases registered against my husband under Indian Penal Code, the regular penal law is available to deal my husband in accordance with law, there is no necessity to pass detention order against my husband. I submit that the Respondents acting in casual manner and failed to follow the dictum laid down by the three Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu while attempting to pass the detention order since my husband is lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal.
19. I respectfully submit that the respondents are violating the two fundamental principles
i) that it is not every crime that qualify for an order of preventive detention unless it impacts public order.
ii) that on order of preventive detention cannot be used substitute for the ordinary law.
20. I respectfully submit that in this regard I made a detailed representation to the Respondents on 23.10.2023 through mail and speed post and my husband is innocent. I submit that having left with no efficacious alternative remedy, I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by invoking the Special Original Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India following among other:
GROUNDS
a) That in Munagala Yadamma –Vs- State of A.P., 2012 (2) SCC 386, the Supreme Court pointed out that if the offences complained of, are of an nature which can be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land, a recourse to preventive Detention is not warranted.
b) That in Deepak Bajaj –Vs- State of Maharashtra, 2008 (16) SCC 14, the Supreme Court again reiterated that the Constitutional Court has the power to entertain a Writ Petition against Preventive Detention even at the pre-execution stage.
c) That the act of the Third respondent is in line with the legal proposition “ DOCTRINE OF CHILLING EFFECT” , as observed in the Supreme Court case of R. Rajgopal which made this doctrine recognized in Indian law. This order further referred to the Delhi High Court order that observed this doctrine of chilling effect as “if a person is under fear of being sued, he may not express himself freely on public issues, and this would chill the public debate.” The Third respondent is attempting to threaten the petitioner with false cases and detention laws to chill him from expressing his views against corruption, price rise in electricity, property tax and fuel cost.
d) That Act of the Third Respondent is highly arbitrary and it is against the constitution, violative of Human Rights and against Principles of Natural Justice. The Act of the Third Respondent put
me and my family members under mental pressure and mental agony
e) That the detention order proposed to be passed should be restrained in reference to the orders passed by the Supreme Court judgments such as Subash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India and Anr. (2012) 7 SCC 533, S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1990 (1) SCC 328 and Addl. Secy. To the Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia (Smt) reported in 1992 S.C.C. Supp 496 observing that specific reference to a pre detention order which is yet to be executed can be interfered with by issuing a writ of mandamus in the following contingencies, that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person and that it is passed for a wrong purpose, that it is passed on vague, extraneous, and irrelevant grounds or that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.
It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents Three and Four from passing an order of Preventive detention against my husband Amar Prasad son of Aditya Kumar aged about 37 years from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabber Act, 1982 (Act 14/82) and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Madurai PETITIONER
after the contents are explained to him in Tamil and having understood the same on this day of October 2023
and signed her name in my presence BEFORE ME MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W. P. No. of 2023
Nirosa, (F/)
W/o. S. Amar Prasad,
No. 1, SAMS Enclave,
Ranjith Road,
Kotturpuram,
Chennai 600 085.
…Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram.
4. The Inspector of Police, Kanathur Police Station,
Chengalpattu District
… Respondents
WRIT PETITION
The address for service on the Petitioner is as stated above and on his counsels M/s. M/s. D. Alexis Sudhakar, T. Anto Chrisbeen Jenitha, S. Sirgeth Naina Mohamed, K. Sankar, having their office at No.14, A.K.Nayak Bhavan, First Floor, Jahangir Street, 2nd Line Beach Road, Parrys, Chennai-01.
The address for the service of summons and notices on the Respondents is as stated above.
For the above and other reasons, the petitioner most respectfully pray the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents Three and Four from passing an order of Preventive detention against my husband Amar Prasad son of Aditya Kumar aged about 37 years from detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabber Act, 1982 (Act 14/82) and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Madurai on this day of October 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner DISTRICT: CHENGALPATTU
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE OF
MADRAS
W.P. No. of 2023
WRIT PETITION
M/S . D.ALEXIS SUDHAKAR (269/09)
T. ANTO CHRISBEENJENITHA (209/12)
S. SIRGETH NAINA MOHAMED (3598/11) K. SANKAR (1772/12)
K. RAGHUNATH (1028/08)
A. PANNEERSELVAM (414/16)
G. CHANTHIRAGANTH (6658/21)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
