9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the judgment quashing the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. Analysis: The judgment in question pertains to an appeal challenging the quashing of a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The order of detention was passed against the respondent, identified as a "Goonda," due to his involvement in activities prejudicial to public order. The High Court quashed the detention order on the grounds that the Detaining Authority did not provide a forwarding letter or an additional affidavit along with the order of remand, as required. However, it was established that the order of remand was indeed brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority before passing the detention order. The absence of a forwarding letter or additional affidavit was deemed a hyper-technicality by the appellants, rendering the quashing of the detention order unsustainable. The Supreme Court found that there was no dispute regarding the production of the order of remand before the Detaining Authority and that the High Court's insistence on a forwarding letter or additional affidavit was baseless. It was emphasized that the Sponsoring Authority had presented the necessary material to the Detaining Authority, making the quashing of the detention order unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling in favor of the appellants. Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the respondent should surrender to serve the remaining period of detention due to the passage of time. Citing previous judgments, the Court highlighted that the State must assess whether the impact of the acts leading to the detention order still persists and decide on the necessity of the detenu serving the remaining detention period. The State was directed to make a decision within two months on whether the detenu should be sent back for detention based on the ongoing relevance of the objectionable acts. The Court emphasized that the mere passage of time should not be a sole determinant and that the decision should be based on the circumstances and impact of the detenu's actions. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the State was directed to evaluate the need for the detenu to serve the remaining detention period based on the current circumstances.
|
