9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 590 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of the judgment quashing the order of detention u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1982 - extraneous matters by the Detaining Authority - HELD THAT - The factual mistake committed by the High Court by observing that there was no mention regarding activities being highly dangerous to public order is not sustainable in view of the details indicated and clear mention. It was categorically stated that the destruction of ecological system would be highly dangerous to public order. In any event the effect of Section 5A of the Act cannot be lost sight of. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that decision in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi s case 1992 (8) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT (LB) was distinguishable. The decision in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi s case (supra) clearly applies to the facts of the case. It is to be noted that in D. Vijayalakshmi case (supra) this court categorically held that in view of Section 5A of the Act an extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the detention order as Section 5A was introduced precisely to take care of such a situation. The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal involves identical issues. On both aspects factual as well as legal in both the appeals the High Court s judgments are not sustainable and are therefore set aside. Appeals are allowed
Issues involved: The legality of the judgment quashing the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 based on the consideration of extraneous matters by the Detaining Authority.
Judgment Summary: Factual Background: The case involved a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the detention order. The High Court quashed the order primarily on the ground of considering extraneous matters, despite reliance on a Forest Officer's report. The State argued that the detention was justified based on the confession of the detenu and the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. High Court's Error: The High Court's decision was based on the misconception that the Forest Officer's report did not mention the dangerous impact on public order, which was incorrect as the report clearly indicated the threat to public life due to ecological destruction. The High Court failed to consider the confessional statement and the legal implications of Section 5A of the Act. Legal Analysis: The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable as the Forest Officer's report did address the impact on public order. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that even if one ground of detention fails, the detention can be upheld based on other valid grounds. The Court highlighted the importance of not overlooking the provisions of Section 5A in assessing the validity of detention orders. Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment in both appeals, declaring them legally and factually unsound. The Court directed the State to consider whether the impact of the detenu's actions still warranted detention, emphasizing that the passage of time should not be a sole factor in deciding the remainder of the detention period. The appeals were allowed, and necessary orders were to be passed by the State within two months regarding the detenu's surrender for serving the remaining detention period.
|
