E. Subbulakshmi v. Secretary to Government & Ors.
Background
The petitioner's son was detained as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, by order of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, dated 04.12.2015. His mother's writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed by the Madras High Court, which rejected her arguments that the FIR copy supplied to the detenu was illegible and that the judge's name was wrongly recorded in remand orders. Before the Supreme Court, she raised fresh/additional grounds: the detention order didn't specify its duration, the family wasn't properly informed of the detention, the Detaining Authority relied on an unsigned confessional statement, an illegible FIR copy prejudiced the detenu's right to represent himself, and a Government Order referred to in the detention order was never supplied.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected every ground. The detention's 12-month duration was clear once the initial 12-day order and its subsequent confirmation were read together. Intimation to the detenu's brother by registered post plus a phone call was substantial compliance with the requirement to inform a family member promptly. The unsigned confessional statement was not the sole basis for the Detaining Authority's "subjective satisfaction": the grounds of detention also cited an FIR, an escape-from-custody incident, and other pending criminal cases, so the confession's evidentiary weakness did not taint the whole order. The illegible FIR (Crime No. 598/2015) was merely a "referred to" document and not a "relied upon" document forming the basis of detention (the actual ground case was a different FIR, No. 2348/2015), so its illegibility caused no prejudice requiring supply in clean form. Finally, the Government Order delegating detention-ordering power to the Commissioner was a statutory/administrative order unconnected to the grounds of detention, so its non-supply was immaterial. The petition was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
In a preventive-detention challenge, only the non-supply of a document actually "relied upon" by the Detaining Authority to form its subjective satisfaction is fatal to the detention; documents merely "referred to" in passing, or purely administrative/delegation orders, do not automatically invalidate detention unless actual prejudice to the detenu's right of representation is shown.