Date of preventive detention must also be included while calculating statutory period of five days to serve order, rules Madras HC
The Hindu
Madras High Court has held that the date of preventive detention should also be counted while calculating the statutory period of five days within which the grounds for the detention order must be communicated to the detainee failing which the order would not survive
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has held that the date of preventive detention should also be counted while calculating the statutory period of five days within which the grounds for the detention order must be communicated to the detainee failing which the order would not survive.
Justices M. Sundar and R. Sakthivel passed the ruling while quashing a preventive detention order passed by the Tambaram Commissioner of Police under the category of ‘sexual offender’ on August 30, 2022 against R. Nishanth, 32, who had been booked in a rape case by the Selaiyur all women police.
Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act of 1982 requires the grounds for detention order to be served within five days.
However, in the present case, a booklet containing the grounds had been served upon the detainee, who had been imprisoned at the Puzhal Central Prison in the rape case, only on September 5, 2022. Petitioner’s counsel R. Subhadra Devi contended that there was a delay by one day and hence the detention order must be quashed.
Finding force in her submission, the judges said: “We are of the view that the date of detention has to be included for computing the requirement of five days.” They relied upon a ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in a different case on March 27 this year to conclude that the date of detention must also be counted.
While dealing with the issue of grant of statutory bail if the police fail to file a chargesheet within 60 days of remand (in offences for which the maximum punishment was up to 10 years) and within 90 days (in offences for which the maximum punishment was beyond 10 years), the Supreme Court had insisted on counting the date of remand too.
Therefore, taking a cue from that judgment, the Division Bench led by Justice Sundar ruled that the ratio would squarely apply to preventive detention orders which were more rigorous since they curtail the freedom of an individual not for an offence already committed by them but to prevent them from committing similar offences in the future.
While residents are worried over deaths due to diarrhoea in Vijayawada, officials still grapple to find the root cause. Contaminated drinking water supplied by VMC officials is the reason, insist people in the affected areas, but officials insist that efforts are on to identify the disease and that those with symptoms other than diarrhoea too are visiting the health camps.