Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Tamil Selvi W/o M. Saravana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
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 with other associates and even though a number of cases were registered against him, he di
The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
(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) In a ....
The grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands to ensure the right to make effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be and that he be afforded an opportunity....
Point of Law : A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforde....
The failure to supply legible documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, hindering effective representation and rendering the detention order illegal.
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....
Non-supply of legible documents to the detune constitutes a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
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
