Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Tamil Selvi W/o M. Saravana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of her husband M. Saravana under detention order in REV-CSECOPDL (PRC)/6/2023-MAGL4, dated 13.09.2023 passed by 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt. No. 2119, General Administration (SPL [LAW AND ORDER]) Department, dated 30.10.2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
2. As per the proceedings dated 13.09.2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] treating the detenue as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in notorious criminal activities w
The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
(1) Preventive detention – There is subtle difference between background facts leading to detention order and grounds of detention – Effective knowledge qua a detenu is of utmost importance.
(2) I....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including the communication of grounds of detention in a language understood by the....
The right to be informed of the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue is a fundamental constitutional right, and failure to comply with this requirement, along with the lack of....
The court established that the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's rights, including adequate notice for hearings, provision of necessary legal documents, and consideration ....
The court established that the right to effective representation in detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The judgment establishes the principle that the detention order must strictly comply with procedural requirements, and the detenue's right to understand the grounds of detention and make a meaningful....
The court established that the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue, as per constitutional safeguards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article