The Madras High Court on Friday took exception to the State's indiscriminate and casual use of preventive detention law against citizens..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam said that the State has to give a serious thought to the issue and take a step back to consider who can be termed a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Goondas Act).“Who is a Goonda? That is the important aspect that the State needs to seriously thing about. Can this court allow you to invoke the Act so casually? We are just reminding you that the Supreme Court has made it clear that illegal detention of a citizen by even one day is illegal. There is a report by the Supreme Court that says that Madras High Court is not passing timely orders in preventive detention matters. We want to bring it to your notice. How can you invoke the Goondas Act in cases of individual offences like these?” the bench said..The Court further said that according to a published report by the Supreme Court, it takes an average detenue under the preventive detention law, a minimum of 181 days to get relief from the high court..The Court made the observations while hearing a petition filed by one C Selvaraj seeking quashing of a preventive detention order issued against him by the State authorities in relation to a financial fraud case.It noted that that present case involved use of bogus bank accounts and salary certificates to secure major loans from a bank. However, the authorities had booked Selvaraj, an accused in the case, under the Goondas Act..Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) E Raj Thilak told the Court that bogus bank accounts had opened with the aid of the detenue and false salary certificates had been issued based on which loans were sanctioned. 60 credit cards worth ₹38 lakh and personal loans worth ₹3 crore were availed by 59 customers with fake salary slips. All of this had been facilitated by the detenue, the APP told the Court. The preventive detention order had been deemed necessary to prevent him from causing any further cases of fraud, the State said..The High Court however, said that these were all “individual related offences” and therefore, the police had to conduct an investigation to recover the amount misappropriated.“The nature of the allegations here in our opinion may not strictly fall under the requirements for invoking the preventive detention Act of 1982. There is no element of breach of public order. Individual offences of bank transactions can’t be brought under this Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to approve the preventive detention order,” the Court said while quashing such detention order and allowing the petitioner’s plea.
The Madras High Court on Friday took exception to the State's indiscriminate and casual use of preventive detention law against citizens..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam said that the State has to give a serious thought to the issue and take a step back to consider who can be termed a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Goondas Act).“Who is a Goonda? That is the important aspect that the State needs to seriously thing about. Can this court allow you to invoke the Act so casually? We are just reminding you that the Supreme Court has made it clear that illegal detention of a citizen by even one day is illegal. There is a report by the Supreme Court that says that Madras High Court is not passing timely orders in preventive detention matters. We want to bring it to your notice. How can you invoke the Goondas Act in cases of individual offences like these?” the bench said..The Court further said that according to a published report by the Supreme Court, it takes an average detenue under the preventive detention law, a minimum of 181 days to get relief from the high court..The Court made the observations while hearing a petition filed by one C Selvaraj seeking quashing of a preventive detention order issued against him by the State authorities in relation to a financial fraud case.It noted that that present case involved use of bogus bank accounts and salary certificates to secure major loans from a bank. However, the authorities had booked Selvaraj, an accused in the case, under the Goondas Act..Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) E Raj Thilak told the Court that bogus bank accounts had opened with the aid of the detenue and false salary certificates had been issued based on which loans were sanctioned. 60 credit cards worth ₹38 lakh and personal loans worth ₹3 crore were availed by 59 customers with fake salary slips. All of this had been facilitated by the detenue, the APP told the Court. The preventive detention order had been deemed necessary to prevent him from causing any further cases of fraud, the State said..The High Court however, said that these were all “individual related offences” and therefore, the police had to conduct an investigation to recover the amount misappropriated.“The nature of the allegations here in our opinion may not strictly fall under the requirements for invoking the preventive detention Act of 1982. There is no element of breach of public order. Individual offences of bank transactions can’t be brought under this Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to approve the preventive detention order,” the Court said while quashing such detention order and allowing the petitioner’s plea.
