N. MEERA RANI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 901 · Decided: 22-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~" 
~" 
f 
'1 
,,.__ . 
. -""' 
.. , 
-:·!: 
--,.-
l 
N. MEERA RANI 
A 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
'I. 
AUGUST 22, 1989 
~ 
[S. RANGANATHAN, N_.D. OJHA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
B 
National Security Act, 1980--Section 3(2) and 12( 1) subsisting 
custody of detenue does not invalidate order of detention-Detention 
order can be made in anticipation to operate on release of detenue . 
.,,-
By an order dated 7.9.88 the Collector & District Magistrate 
~' 
Madurai under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 made an order c 
for keeping in custody Nallathamhi, the husband of the appellant/ , 
petitioner. The State Govt. on 25.10.88 by its order under s. 12(1) of the 
Act confirmed the order of detention agreeing with the opinion of the 
Advisory Board and ordered the detention of the detenue for 12 months 
from the date of his detention. The wife of the detenue challenged this 
D 
preventive detention by filing a writ of Habeas Corpus in the High 
Court of Madras. The High Court by its order dated 6.3.89 dismissed 
the writ petition. The appellant-petitioner challenged the dismissal of 
' 
the writ by the High Court by way of special leave and also by filing a 
i 
writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court 
while quashing the detention order, 
E 
HELD: Subsisting custody of the detenue by itself does not invali-
date an order of his preventive detention and the decision must depend 
on the facts of the particular case; preventive detention being necessary 
,~ to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 
security of the State or to the maintenance of public order etc. ordi-
F 
narily it is not needed when the detenue is already in custody; the 
detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting 
custody of the detenue and take that factor into account while making 
the order; but, even so, if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied 
on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of 
his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must he 
G 
\ 
detained in order to prevent him from indulging -in such prejudicial 
F 
>-
activities, the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation 
to operate on his release. [919E-G] -
In the instant case, the the detention order read with its annexure 
indicates the detaining authority's awareness of the fact of de~enue's 
H 
901 
~-
A 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
jail custody at the time of the making of the detention order. tfowever 
there is no indication therin that the detenue could be released. on bail. 
On the contrary the detention order shows satisfaction of the detaining 
authority that there was ample material to support the criminal charge 
against the detenue. The order of detention passed on 7 .9.1988 and its 
confirmation by the State Government. on 25.10.1988 is therefore 
B clearly invalid since the same was ·made when the detenue was already 
in jail custody for the offence of bank dacoity with no prospect of his 
release. [919H-920C] 
c 
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr., [1964] 
4 SCR 921-relied upon. 
Karrie Chandra Guha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 
3 SCC 490; Dr. Ramakrishna Rawat v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur & 
Anr., [1975] 4 SCC 164; Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & 
Ors., [1982] 2 SCC 43; Alijan Mian & Anr. v. District Magistrate, 
Dhanbad, [1983] 3 SCR 939; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, 
D 
Etah & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 232; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, 
Dhanbad, Bihar & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 416; Poonam Lara v. M.L. 
Wadhawan & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 48 and Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State 
of U.P. & Ors., [1988] 1SCC436. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
E 
No. 511of1989. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1989 of the Madras 
High Court in W.P. No. 14828 of 1988. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 of 1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
U.R. Lalit and V. Balachandran for the Appellant/Petitioner. 
K. Rajendra Chowdhary, V. Krishnamurthy and S. Thananjayan 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
VERMA, J. Special leave granted. 
~"-
;l
~-{:,. 
' 
N.M. RANI v. GOVT. OF. TAMIL NADU [VERMA, J.) 
903 
,l 
The appellant-petitioner, Smt. N. Meera Rani, is the wife of 
Nallathambi, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 
A 
1980 (Act No. "65 of1980) (hereinafter referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.