Court’s Decision:
The Madras High Court quashed the preventive detention order passed against the detenu by the second respondent dated 19.06.2024. The court ruled that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind due to reliance on an undated statement, which cast doubt on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the second respondent under preventive detention laws. The detenu was incarcerated at the Central Prison, Puzhal, classified as a “Goonda.” The petitioner contended that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail was based on an undated statement, making it unreliable.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was vitiated by reliance on an undated statement from the relatives of the detenu, which raised doubts about the necessity of preventive detention.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was flawed due to reliance on an undated statement from the detenu’s relatives, suggesting they were planning to file a bail application. It was contended that, without a clear date, the necessity to detain the individual became questionable.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents defended the detention order, asserting that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based on the available records, including the statement of the detenu’s relatives, and that this justified preventive detention.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed the law concerning preventive detention and subjective satisfaction. It referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), which held that a detention order without proper application of mind or based on non-existent or irrelevant materials would be vitiated.
Precedent Analysis:
The court relied on the precedent set in the Rekha case, where the Supreme Court had ruled that preventive detention orders must be based on credible and relevant information. In the absence of such details, the order would fail.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based on a flawed premise. The undated statement from the relatives of the detenu regarding their intention to file for bail raised doubts about the necessity for detention. The court concluded that the detention order was passed without proper application of mind.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the detention order passed on 19.06.2024 by the second respondent. The detenu was ordered to be released from custody unless he was required in connection with any other case.