STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus KETHIYAN PERUMAL

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 11-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
v. 
KETHIY AN PERUMAL 
B 
OCTOBER' 11, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggars, Drug 
C Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982: 
Sections 3(1) and SA-Detention Order-Set aside by High Court as the 
Forest Officer's Report did not mention that the activities of detenue dangerous 
to public order whereas in an identical matter on basis of the said report 
detention upheld-Legality of-Held: High Court failed to take note of the 
D fact that factual distinction· sought to be brought about by detenu not 
supportable and also the effect of the confessional statement and the background 
facts-Further, the Forest Officer's Report clearly mentions that the activities 
of detenu prejudicially affected public order- Also in view of section 5A an 
extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of detention order-
Hence, order of High Court set aside. 
E 
Section 3(1)-Preventive Detention-To undergo remaining period of 
detention in view of passage of time-Held: In all cases passage of time 
cannot be a ground for not sending the detenu to serve remaining period of 
detention-State has to consider effect of the objectionable acts, its continuity 
F and existence of a proximate temporal nexus between the period of detention 
indicated in the order by which detenu was required to be detained and the 
date when deten:t is required to be detained pursuant to the Appellate Order. 
K was detained under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of 
Dangerous Activities of Boot leggars, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral 
G Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabber~ Act, 1982. Respondent-detenu's wife 
challenged the detention order on the ground that the Forest Officer's 
Report did not anywhere indicate that the activities of the detenu has been 
highly dangerous to public order. State contended that in Mrs. U. 
Vijaylakshmi 's case, same Forest Officer's Report was referred and 
detention order was upheld in view of section SA of the Act that an 
H 
Jn 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. KETHIY AN PERUMAL 
323 
extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the detention A 
order. High Court distinguished Mrs U. Vijaylakshmi 's case though it was 
with reference to the same report of the Forest Officer since the points 
· which were presently urged were not taken before High Court in the 
earlier case. It allowed the petition on the ground that the Detaining 
Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the B 
finding about unlawful activities of the detenu. 
. .. ' ' · ! 1 r ,. • 
Appellant-State and Detaining Authority contended. that the; High 
Court accepted the prayer of the detenu on the ground that.theiForest: 
Officer's report did not specifically refer to the alleged unlawful activities 
aspect; or that the impugned acts were highly dangero'lls to public' ~'rd er; C 
that there was a confession of respondent No. 1 showing clear-admissidi{ 
about the unlawful activities; and that the High Court did not keep in view 
• 
• 
~ 
-
I i 
I-· 
j 
• 
' 
; 
' 
, 
' 
: 
I rt j' ·~ 'r 
l 1 
, 
., l 
the effect of Section 5A of the Act. · 
· 
, ,. 
.:· 
, 
_ . , 
Allowing the appeals, the Co.urt; · . .' 
HELD 1. In both Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi's* case and the instant case 
the Forest Officer's report was common. High Co~~t did n'ot t~ke 'a~te of 
the fact that the factual distinction sought 1 to be brought about -by the 
".J'i, 
I• 
l 
-_JQ.1'-. r l 
'··: 
· 
· ,; - ... ; 
• ..... 
• 
,-, 
.• f"-'• .. • 
1.,_ 
J4 
I• 
detenu is not supportable. Effect of the confessional statement .and the 
,1 
· I; J,.j { · 
background facts have not been taken note of. The factual mistake, 
D 
committed by High Court by;observing that.there,was:no m.ention in the E' 
Forest Officer's Report regarding activities being highly dangerous to 
public order, is not 'sustainabte:ln' fact,-it'clearly' mentions that activities 
of-the detenu' prejuCliCially affected; public''or'der·.· The- destruction of 
ecoltigical system would be highly<Jangerous'to public cifder~ Furthermore~· 
in any event the effect of Section'5A'of the Act carinofbe lost sight Of. In F 
U. Vijayalakshmi's case this court categorically held that in view of Section 
5A'6rthe Act ~ri·e~traneo.lls and frr~t~Vant ground does not affect validity 
• 
. 
I~ ,: 
:~~ 
~ t 
,-'I "fj'" ·. 
t 
•. 
J 
.t 
c 
. 
. 
• 
~ 
• 
• 
ofthe'detention or

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