N. SENGODAN versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 341 
N. SENGODAN 
A 
v. 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & 
EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2013) 
JULY 1, 2013 
B 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
-Ji. 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
-. 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of c 
.. 
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, 
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 -
s.3(2) - Detention of appellant under the 1982 Act- Advisory 
"' 
Board constituted u/s.10 of the 1982 Act held that there was 
y 
no sufficient cause for detention of appellant -
State D 
Government subsequently revoked the order of detention -
Appellant, if entitled to damages for being in detention for 
more than two months - Held: Respondents failed to bring 
on record evidence to show that appellant was engaged, or 
was making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities E 
as a 'Goonda' which may affect or are likely to affect adversely 
the maintenance of public order - Nothing on record to 
,.A 
suggest that appellant, either by himself or as a member of 
or leader of a gang habitually committed, or attempted to 
commit or abetted the commission of offence punishable F 
under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XX.II of /PC -
Appellant had to remain in custody for more than two months 
on the basis of opinion given by the respondents based on 
facts which were not in existence - Respondent-State and its 
~,_,A 
officers grossly abused legal power to punish appellant to 
G 
destroy his reputation in a manner non-oriented by Jaw by 
detaining him under the 1982 Act in /odgi(/g a criminal case 
u/s.3 of the 1992 Act and u/s.505(1)(b) !PC .based on wrong 
statements which were fully unwarranted - Consequently, cost 
341 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu for payment 
in favour of appellant - Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 
1922 - s. 3 - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 505 - Preventive 
Detention. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 21 and 22 - Personal 
B 
liberty - Deprivation of - Held: To be only as per procedure 
prescribed in CrPC and the Evidence Act conformable to the 
mandate of the Constitution -
The investigator is not 
c 
D 
empowered to trample upon the personal liberty of a person 
.k--
when he has acted by malafides. 
Through a press statement published in a Tamil 
Newspaper "Malai Murasu", the appellant, a retired police 
officer, had made requisition on behalf of the officials 
working in the Tamil Nadu Police Department to the 
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. 
It was alleged that the appellant was inciting the 
police personnel in Tamil Nadu to form an association to 
fight for their rights against the Government and that he 
toured several districts in the State and incited the 
E serving police personnel over forming of an association, 
and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. Charges under Section 3 of the Police 
(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 
505(1)(b) IPC were levelled against the appellant. 
F 
The appellant was declared as "Goonda" and 
detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention 
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, 
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders 
and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. However, the Advisory 
G Board constituted under Section 10 of the 1982 Act held 
that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the 
appellant and thereafter the State Government revoked 
the order of detention. 
" 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
H instant appeal was whether in the facts and 
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI., 343 
r 
CHENNAI 
circumstances of the case the appellant was entitled for A 
any damage for having detained for around two months 
under Section 3(2) of the 1982 Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The Police-Forces (Restriction of Rights) 8 
Act, 1966 provides for the .restriction of certain rights 
-.X 
conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution in their application 
to the members of the Forces charged with the 
.. 
maintenance of public order as to ensure the proper 
discharge of their duties and the maintenance of c 
discipline among them. Section 3 of the 1966 Act restricts 
right to form association, freedom of speech, etc. but 
... 
there is no specific ban to form association. [Paras 27 
and 29] [375-H; 376-A-B; 377-D] 
y 
D 
2. From the press statement d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.