LexSUBRAMANIAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 985 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2012) FEBRUARY 21, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAME~WAR, JJ.] Preventive detention: A B Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of c Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - ss. 3 and 2(f) - Detention order u/s. 3, against the detenue - Habeas Corpus petition - Dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: Detaining 0 Authority, on consideration of materials placed found that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and a/so acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a 'goonda' as contemplated uls. 2(f) - Detenu armed with 'aruva/', along with his associates armed with 'katta' E came to the shop of the complainant, threatened him and also damaged the properties available in the shop - It cannot be said that there was non-application of the mind to the relevant material by the Detaining Authority; and that there was non- consideration of the representation of the detenu by the Detaining Aµthority which vitiates the entire detention order - Conclusion bf the Detaining Authority that the detenu was a habitual offender cannot be considered to be based on stale instances - All the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to how the acts of the G detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order - Thus, the High Court rightly upheld the detention order. F In the instant case, the ground case incident arose 985 H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A out of the land dispute between the detenu and the complainant. The complaint was filed with the police that the detenu armed with aruval (sickle) along with his associates apart from threatening the complainant caused damages to the STD booth. Prior to the said B incident the dentue was involved in cases in the years 2008 and 2010. Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police passed a detention order against the detenu under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest c Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 holding him to be a goonda noticing his involvement in the said case as well as past cases. The appellant filed a representation and the same was rejected. Aggrieved, the 0 appellant (father of detenu) filed a Habeas Corpus Petition and the High Court dismissed the same. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 The court does not interfere with the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Detaining Authority when the grounds of detention are F precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the Court but for the Detaining Authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order is G required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally, the matter has necessarily to be H left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 987 practicable to lay down ob!ective rules of conduct in an A exhaustive manner. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, the.-efore, is considered to be of primary importance with certain latitude in the exercise of its discretion. [Para 11] [996-B-E] 1.2 The Detaining Authority, on consideration of materials placed found that the accused caused damage B to both public and private properties, threatened the public and also created a situation of panic among the public. The Detaining Authority was satisfied that the C detenu is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a 'goonda' as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.