Madras High Court Overturns Preventive Detention Orders Linked to Kallakurichi Hooch Incident
Click to start listening
Chennai, Jan 6 (NationPress) The Madras High Court has invalidated a number of preventive detention orders issued under the Goondas Act against the individuals involved in the Kallakurichi hooch incident.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justices Subramaniam and M. Jothiraman, declared on Monday that such detentions infringe upon the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
The court stressed that the authority to implement preventive detention laws should be exercised cautiously to prevent misuse or grievances.
The Kallakurichi hooch incident, which took place in June 2024, led to the demise of 68 individuals and caused significant health complications for around 161 others, including vision impairment among several survivors.
The individuals accused were apprehended shortly after the tragic event.
The court noted that 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, 1982 (commonly known as the Goondas Act) was invoked by the Collector only in August 2024, two months post-arrest.
Justice Subramaniam, who penned the ruling, highlighted that the delay in implementing the Act was unwarranted.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that some of the accused, allegedly involved in supplying methanol and other dangerous substances, were illiterate or did not comprehend Tamil.
Despite this, the documents utilized by the Collector to issue the detention orders were not translated into languages that the detainees understood.
The court observed that the lack of translated documents infringed upon the detainees’ rights to present an effective challenge against the detention orders.
This procedural error, along with the extended delay in invoking the Act, compelled the court to annul the detention orders.
The Division Bench also remarked that the accused had already been in custody for over six months, with the majority not being granted bail.
The court recommended that investigating agencies should contest bail applications if necessary, rather than continuing with preventive detentions.
