Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1904 (MAD)

Thirupathy v. Commissioner of Police, Egmore

2014-07-03

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
ORDER V. Dhanapalan, J. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel representing all the learned counsel on record for the petitioners, and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecuror, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Since all these Habeas Corpus Petitions arise out of a common offence and the grounds of detention are also akin, they are being disposed of in common. 3. All these petitions have been filed either by the detenus themselves or by their wives or mother. The detenus have been detained by the detaining authority in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Piracy Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), "in short, the Act", read with orders issued by the Government in various Government Orders under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branded as Goondas, for their involvement in the crimes under Sections 379, 380, 341, 336,427,392 and 506 (ii) of IPC. 4. The detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction, based on the adverse cases and also the ground cases of each of the detenus on the said offences, taking into account the possibility of their coming out on bail and indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, and also that the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing them from indulging in such activities and also the material information furnished by the sponsoring authority so also the similar cases, wherein bail was granted to the accused by the court, and detained the detenus under Section 2 (f) of the Act. 5. The detenus have been involved in the above offences and mostly Section 379 of IPC and the said detenus are in the age group of 24 to 36 years and also the number of cases of theft involved are ranging from 2 to 42. Similarly, robbery and chain snatching cases are of the common nature, wherein the recovery of amount would range from rupees hundred to several thousands in some cases and also leading to recovery of gold jewels. 6. Similarly, robbery and chain snatching cases are of the common nature, wherein the recovery of amount would range from rupees hundred to several thousands in some cases and also leading to recovery of gold jewels. 6. The petitioners have commonly raised certain constitutional violations and the mandatory requirements of the rights of the detenus, guaranteed under Articles 22 (1) and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, as to the deprivation of material information to be furnished to them for making effective representation or the arrest information or the non-application of mind and also the subjective satisfaction arrived at without any material on the part of the detaining authority. 7. We have verified all the booklets of the detentions and also the materials furnished to the detenus. 8. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to decide the petitions on their own merits, separately. 9. Detenu himself has questioned the order of detention. He is aged 24 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the material supplied to the detenu at page No.13 of the booklet has been furnished with improper translation and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. 10. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of KasthuribaiGandhi vs The Secretary To Government in H.C.P.(MD)No.1226 of 2013, has held as under: "18. It was also well founded that furnishing copy of defective translation of the remand order and other material papers is mandatory and failure to consider the original order of remand while disposing the representation would vitiate the detention order and the detention, accordingly, would be unsustainable, in law, which is applicable to the present case." 11. On verification of the booklet, it is seen that page No.13 which pertains to the Warrant of Commitment on a sentence, has not been properly translated and given to the detenu. Hence, this defect would deprive the detenu a reasonable opportunity of making an effective representation. For the said reason, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. H.C.P.No.2891 of 2013 : 12. Detenu is aged 36 years. His wife has come before this Court and deposed that her husband has ceased his misdemeanours after the marriage and now he has not been involved in any of the offences. However, in respect of the old cases, the detenu has been taken by the sponsoring authority for interrogation and, thereafter, clamped with the impugned order of detention. His wife has come before this Court and deposed that her husband has ceased his misdemeanours after the marriage and now he has not been involved in any of the offences. However, in respect of the old cases, the detenu has been taken by the sponsoring authority for interrogation and, thereafter, clamped with the impugned order of detention. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on taking us through the material information, pointed out that the decision of the detaining authority in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention to arrive at the subjective satisfaction based on the material information by the sponsoring authority that the relatives are taking steps to bail the detenu out in Crime Nos.683/2013, 826/2013, 843/2013, 1215/2013, 1238/2013 and 1287/2013 on the file of T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station, by filing application before the appropriate court, is not supported by any material. 14. A Division Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of S.Deepikavs The State Of Tamil Nadu decided in H.C.P.No.2603 of 2012 on 02.07.2013, was pleased to hold as under : H.C.P.No.2471 of 2013 : "73.3) In A.MURUGESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (2010 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 950), it had been held that, while no bail application had been filed on behalf of the detenu, before the Court concerned, it would be too early for the detaining authority to record his satisfaction that the detenu is likely to come out on bail or that, if he is let to remain at large, he would indulge in such activities, in future, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Unless, cogent materials are available, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would be a 73.4) In BALAJI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2010(1) CTC 820), a Division Bench of this Court, referring to the decisions, in CHANDRU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUCHIRAPALLI CITY, TRICHY AND ANOTHER (2007(1) TCJ 766, and CHELLADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI600 009, AND ANOTHER, had held that the mere statement of the detaining authority, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, especially, when no bail application had been filed on behalf of the detenu, shall not be sufficient to show 15. GEORGE, CHENNAI600 009, AND ANOTHER, had held that the mere statement of the detaining authority, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, especially, when no bail application had been filed on behalf of the detenu, shall not be sufficient to show 15. On verification of the Special Report furnished at page No.273 of the booklet, it is established that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority for detaining the detenu is not supported by any material. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated. H.C.P.No.3224 of 2013 : 16. Detenu himself has called in question the order of detention. He is aged 36 years. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a point that the document furnished in page 7 of the booklet is illegible. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others, where the document supplied to the detenu was illegible, has held as under: "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material. provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings." 19. On verification of the booklet at page 7, it is seen that the copy of the judgment made in Crime No.632/2004 is not legible and, therefore, there is a denial of opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation by understanding the contents therein. For this reason, the impugned order is unsustainable. H.C.P.No.3372 of 2013 : 20. Wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention. Detenu is aged 28 years. 21. For this reason, the impugned order is unsustainable. H.C.P.No.3372 of 2013 : 20. Wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention. Detenu is aged 28 years. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the detention order on two grounds, the first of which being that there is no material to support the decision of the detaining authority as to the sponsoring authority's information that the relatives are taking steps to bail the detenu out in Crime Nos.862/2013, 991/2013, 1219/2013, 1283/2013, 1329/2013, 1345/2013 and 1493/2013 and, secondly, an illegible document was furnished to the detenu at page No.265. 22. We have verified the Special Report furnished at page No.382 of the booklet, from which we could see that there is no material to support the decision of the detaining authority as to the sponsoring authority's information that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime numbers. As regards the second point that the document furnished to the detenu is illegible, a perusal of page no.265 which pertains to the List of Property sent to the Magistrate, it is seen that the said document is not legible, thereby depriving the detenu of making an effective representation. 23. On verification of the records, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would concur that there is no material to support the decision of the detaining authority and that the document furnished was illegible. 24. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated. Any information relied upon by the detaining authority should be supported by material and the same supplied to the detenu. The absence of any of the said acts would lead to deprivation of opportunity to the detenu to defend his case effectively. H.C.P.No.3376 of 2013 : 25. Detenu himself is the petitioner, aged 24 years. He is an illiterate. 26. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remand order is not in proper form and various materials supplied to the detenu at page Nos.71,73 and 75 of the booklet are defective coupled with improper translation and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. 27. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the remand order at page No.157 and also the other materials would definitely create a confusion in the mind of the detenu for making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 27. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the remand order at page No.157 and also the other materials would definitely create a confusion in the mind of the detenu for making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. H.C.P.No.3385 of 2013 : 28. Wife of the detenu is the petitioner. Detenu is aged 24 years. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that no arrest memo has been furnished to the detenu in respect of adverse cases, but only in ground case, it has been furnished. 30. When the arrest was made and there was a remand, the detenu should be informed of the grounds and furnished the materials relied upon by the detaining authority for such arrest, so also the close relatives of the detenu. 31. In the case of A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India and another ( AIR 1982 SC 710 (1)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “75. Since Section 5 of the Act provides for, as shown by its marginal note, the power to regulate the place and conditions of detention, there is one more observation which we would like to make and which we consider as of great importance in matters of preventive detention. In order that the procedure attendant upon detentions should conform to the mandate of Art.21 in the matter of fairness, justness and reasonableness, we consider it imperative that immediately after a person is taken in custody in pursuance of an order of detention, the members of his household, preferably the parent, the child or the spouse, must be informed in writing of the passing of the order of detention and of the fact that the detenu has been taken in custody. Intimation must also be given as to the place of detention including the place where the detenu is transferred from time to time. This Court has stated time and again that the person who is taken in custody does not forfeit, by reason of his arrest, all and every one of his fundamental rights. It is, therefore, necessary to treat the detenu consistently with human dignity and civilized norms of behaviour.” 32. In this case, in the absence of any of the said factors, the impugned order of detention is vitiated under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. It is, therefore, necessary to treat the detenu consistently with human dignity and civilized norms of behaviour.” 32. In this case, in the absence of any of the said factors, the impugned order of detention is vitiated under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. H.C.P.No.3413 of 2013 : 33. Mother of the detenue has filed this petition. Detenu is aged 33 years. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the details of a similar case relied upon by the detaining authority in Crime No.1677 of 2012 in Crl.M.P.No.8172 of 2012 were not furnished to the detenu and, therefore, non-supply of the material relied upon by the detaining authority could deprive the right of the detenu to make an effective representation. 35. On verification of the booklet, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said materials are not available on record. 36. In similar circumstances, in the case of Siva Alias Sivakumar vs The Secretary To Government, this Court in H.C.P(MD)No.1253 of 2012, has held as follows: "7. Keeping in view the above legal principles, if we look into the facts involved in the case, there can be no dispute that the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that there is real possibility of the accused coming out on bail and the said conclusion is based on the fact that in a similar case in Crime No.842/2011 on the file of Virudhunagar West Police Station, bail was granted to the accused therein. But, it is the contention of the petitioner that relevant documents relating to the said case, such as FIR, Mahazar etc., have not been furnished. To the contrary, only copy of the bail order has been given. In our considered opinion, non-furnishing of all these indicate the total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The detaining authority in a mechanical fashion only on considering the bail order has come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. 8. The preventive detention is made not by way of punishment, but it is only by way of prevention. Though the same has got constitutional sanction, it pre-supposes adherence to the constitutional safeguards. In this case, the said safeguards, as we have pointed out, have not been complied with. Therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside. 37. The preventive detention is made not by way of punishment, but it is only by way of prevention. Though the same has got constitutional sanction, it pre-supposes adherence to the constitutional safeguards. In this case, the said safeguards, as we have pointed out, have not been complied with. Therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside. 37. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that any material relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied to the detenu to enable himself avail of the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation, which is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, for redressal of his grievance. Non-supply of the material has deprived the petitioner of the said opportunity and, hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. H.C.P.No.3415 of 2013 : 38. Wife of the detenu is the petitioner. Detenu is aged 26 years. 39. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that there is no material to support the decision of the detaining authority as to the information of the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail the detenu out by filing bail applications in Crime Nos.2534/2013, 2542/2013, 2560/2013 and 2585/2013 before the appropriate court. 40. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on verification of the records, would submit that the information of the sponsoring authority as to the taking of steps by the relatives to bail the detenu out in the said crime numbers is not supported by any material. 41. Hence, we are to necessarily hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority to detain the detenu is not supported by any material and, accordingly, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 42. In this context, we feel it indispensable to refer to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which are the safeguards available to a person to protect his life and personal liberty and also against arrest and detention by any unjustified action of the State. The said provisions are as under : Article 21 : Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The said provisions are as under : Article 21 : Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 22 : Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.—(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply— (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. (4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless— (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention: Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7). (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. (6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose. (7) Parliament may by law prescribe— (a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4); (b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and (c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4). 43. Fundamental Rights occupy a place of pride in the Indian Constitution. Article 21 provides “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution. The expression “life or personal liberty” has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries. Article 21 is the foundation of the constitutional scheme. It grants to every person the right to life and personal liberty. The procedure established by law for deprivation of rights conferred by this article must be fair, just and reasonable. The rules of justice and fair play require that State action should neither be unjust nor unfair, lest it attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribed that procedure and, consequently, the action taken thereunder. Any action taken by a public authority which is entrusted with the statutory power has, therefore, to be tested by the application of two standards—first, the action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and, second, it must be reasonable. Any action taken by a public authority which is entrusted with the statutory power has, therefore, to be tested by the application of two standards—first, the action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and, second, it must be reasonable. If any action, within the scope of the authority conferred by law is found to be unreasonable, it means that the procedure established under which that action is taken is itself unreasonable. 44. The primary task of the State is to provide security to all citizens without violating human dignity. Powers conferred upon the statutory authorities have to be perforce admitted. Nonetheless, the very essence of constitutionalism is also that no organ of the State may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the Constitution. 45. Privacy and dignity of human life has always been considered a fundamental human right of every human being like any other key values, such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. Therefore, every act which offends or impairs human dignity tantamounts to deprivation pro tanto of his right to live and the State action must be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights. 46. The Constitution does not merely speak of human rights protection. It also speaks of preservation and protection of man as well as animals, all creatures, plants, rivers, hills and environment. Our Constitution professes for collective life and collective responsibility on the one hand and individual rights and responsibilities on the other hand. 47. It may not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the Preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to ‘assure the dignity of the individual’ and, therefore, of those cherished human values as the means of ensuring his full development and evolution. 48. Every citizen in this country has the right to live with dignity and honour which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. 49. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. 49. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. Utmost importance is given to life and personal liberty of an individual, since personal liberty is the paramount essential to human dignity and human happiness. 50. In matters of preventive detention, as there is deprivation of liberty without trial, safeguards are provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. Under Article 22 (1), no person, who is arrested, shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. Article 22 (2) directs that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. These are some of the constitutional safeguards provided to a person with a view to protect his personal liberty against any unjustified assault by the State. In tune with the constitutional guarantee, a number of statutory provisions also seek to protect personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights of the citizens. Under Article 22 (5), a detenu has two rights viz., (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which his detention is based and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against his detention. Under Article 22 (5), a detenu has two rights viz., (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which his detention is based and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against his detention. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first right and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second right. No distinction can be made between introductory facts, background facts and “grounds” as such. If the actual allegations are vague and irrelevant, detention would be rendered invalid. 51. To decide the correctness or otherwise of the detention order, two issues of importance arise before this Court. The first is regarding the documents and material on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority in passing the detention order. Secondly, with those materials, the detaining authority was justified in arriving at a finding that the detenu should be detained under the Act without any trial. In matters of this nature, this Court normally will not go into the correctness of the decision as such, but, will only look into decision-making process. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but review of the manner in which the decision was made. The purpose of review is to ensure that the individual receives a fair treatment. 52. There must be a reasonable basis for the detention order and also there must be material to support the same. The Court is entitled to scrutinise the material relied upon by the authority in coming to its conclusion and, accordingly, determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction. The subjective satisfaction must be two-fold. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the authority must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from so acting. 53. Just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any manner. 53. Just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any manner. Article 21 is repository of all human rights essential for a person or a citizen. A fruitful and meaningful life presupposes life full of dignity, honour, health and welfare. In the modern “Welfare Philosophy”, it is for the State to ensure these essentials of life to all its citizens, and if possible to non-citizens. While invoking the provisions of Article 21 and by referring to the oftquoted statement of Joseph Addison, “Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour”, if a question is posed to ourselves as to “If dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life?”, there remains the significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India in its Third Part. 54. Right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and any decision affecting human right or which may put an individual’s life at risk must call for the most anxious scrutiny. Therefore, it is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity, but to facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction. No exact definition of human dignity exists. It refers to the intrinsic value of every human being, which is to be respected. It cannot be taken away. Every human being has dignity by virtue of his existence. 55. We are conscious of the fact that the grounds stated in the orders of detention are sufficient or not is not within the ambit of the discretion of the Court and it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is implied. However, if one of the grounds or reasons which lead to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid. 56. Keeping in view the above well-settled legal principles, we have perused the grounds of detention and the documents relied on by the detaining authority while passing the orders of detention impugned herein. 56. Keeping in view the above well-settled legal principles, we have perused the grounds of detention and the documents relied on by the detaining authority while passing the orders of detention impugned herein. In our considered view, for the reasons stated vide the discussion of each of the petitions as above, the grounds on which the detention orders are passed have no probative value and are extraneous to the scope, purpose and the object of the Act, thereby leading to the making of the detention orders a nullity. Accordingly, the orders of detention are set aside and the detenus are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in connection with any other case. H.C.Ps. are allowed. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE – REFORMS SUGGESTED: 57. While parting with, we are to state that we have noticed in these cases that the detenus are aged between 24 and 36 years and the offences wherein the detenus are involved are mostly under Sections 379 and 380 of IPC. When we inquired the learned counsel and also the authorities of the State who have come to the Court, it has come to light that these young detenus hailing from various sections of society are in habitual involvement of the offences of theft and robbery, which is harmful to the society. Such activities of the youth indulging in the activities prejudicial to the interest of the society and the public in general, thereby disturbing public order, peace and tranquility, could be curbed only by preventive detention laws or regular laws. 58. We are also informed that there are certain prison reforms available in the prison itself. The said reforms include security training, yoga classes, medical classes, computer training, preparation of snacks and sweets, teaching of educational fundamentals, Mahatma Gandhi Community College Scheme and also counselling classes by psychologists. The resultant beneficiaries of the reformatory schemes are in hundreds. 59. No doubt, the prison authorities have to follow prison manual and the rule of law under which they are governed and they are empowered to take decisions only in accordance with the said law. Under the detention laws and also in the unusual circumstances, thousands of culprits shall be detained in prison, among whom a considerable percentage of youth are confined for the kind of offences of present nature. Under the detention laws and also in the unusual circumstances, thousands of culprits shall be detained in prison, among whom a considerable percentage of youth are confined for the kind of offences of present nature. It is equally important that the prison authorities provide for some kind of reformation among the youth, who are the foundation of the society and future generation of the nation. Their refinement in the society and also their involvement in the crimes, which are harmful to the society, ought to be looked into in a proper manner and scheme. 60. Our experience in the past would give a clear impression that there are several thousands of youths in the clutches of law, particularly under preventive detention law, and the said youths are detained in a prison commonly available to all prison convicts and other hardcore criminals. If the youths are confined in such an atmosphere for the detention period of twelve months in preventive detention cases or in some other clutches of law, will it be possible for the prison authorities to reform the said youth in order to bring them to the mainstream of life and also to meet the aim of refinement of youths for their future so as to prevent them from indulging in the crimes, which are prejudicial to the interest of the public. 61. We have analysed the various situations with our experience in the past several months, which would give us some vision that there shall be a scheme of reformation under the State of Tamil Nadu and it should not be within the prison itself, but shall be outside the prison in a separate and specially designed compound meant for that purpose alone for the youth, particularly those in the age group of 21 to 40 years, so that they must be taught not only about their conduct, discipline, system of life, moral and ethical values and also how the life should be led. On the continuous involvement in commission of offences, the youth must be taught of the impact on the family, on the children, on the society, on the nation, and the mankind of the entire world, so that the commission of offences will be lessened in theoretical manner. On the continuous involvement in commission of offences, the youth must be taught of the impact on the family, on the children, on the society, on the nation, and the mankind of the entire world, so that the commission of offences will be lessened in theoretical manner. The said teaching of impact should also be by visual media, printing media and with modern technologies, designed for the purpose of keeping the youth learning the moral values and the youth themselves coming to the mainstream of life, thereby eschewing the commission of crimes in the society in future. 62. Therefore, we suggest that the State of Tamil Nadu shall, after consulting all the stakeholders 63. We applaud, if this suggestion is taken into account by the State with a social obligation and with a positive approach to the progress of the society and also the well-being of the nation and the mankind and the same is acted upon at the earliest. 64. We place on record the able assistance rendered by Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the other learned counsel on record; Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State; and also the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons), who spent considerable time during the course of these petitions and explained various measures taken by the Government in this regard. 65. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, for taking appropriate steps in the matter.