IRUDHIA IRUDAYANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together, since the contention urged is identical, though the detenus and the ground crimes in which they were involved are totally different.

(2.) IRUDHI alias Irudayanathan, petitioner in H. C. P. No. 1784 of 1993 is the detenu himself who has been detained as a goonda under tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 30. 3. 1993, passed by second respondent Commissioner of Police, Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) EVEN at the outset, we are impelled to state that expression of awareness of the fact of remand or fact of detenu enjoying liberty or bail in the grounds coupled with arriving at subjective satisfaction, on the compelling necessity to detain such detenus, to prevent their future acts, would be a different concept altogether, than communication contemplated under law, or basic material to the detenus, to afford them an opportunity to represent against their detentions, as guaranteed under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.