PANJALAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case on hand is a classic case for reminding ourselves about some of the well settled principles in Habeas Corpus jurisprudence and they are:

(2.) Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [ 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of the Detenu assailing a 'Preventive Detention Order dtd. 26/11/2022 bearing reference CPT No.68/2022 [hereinafter 'impugned Preventive Detention Order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, Fifth Respondent is the Sponsoring Authority and Second Respondent is the Detaining Authority as the impugned Detention Order has been made by Second Respondent acting on a proposal from Fifth Respondent.

(3.) Impugned Preventive Detention Order has been made under '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 brevity, convenience and clarity] on the premise that the Detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.