Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Saroja - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
H.C.P. No. 1250 of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Habeas Corpus - Detention Order - The court quashed the detention order on the grounds that the remand order was not translated into vernacular language, depriving the detenu of effective representation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, mother of the detenu, challenged the detention order of her son, who was held as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petitioner argued that the remand order was not translated into vernacular language, depriving the detenu of effective representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remand order had not been translated into vernacular language, which deprived the detenu of effective representation, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of translation of the remand order into vernacular language and the failure to provide legible copies of the documents relied on by the detaining authority, which deprived the detenu of effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the failure to translate the remand order into vernacular language, which was deemed to deprive the detenu of effective representation, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside, directing the release of the detenu unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the second respondent in Rc.No.C2/15577/2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son Sankar @ Sharpsankar @ Vettusankar, S/o.Arumugam, aged 20 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Sankar @ Sharpsankar @ Vettusankar, S/o.Arumugam, aged 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Rc.No.C2/15577/2021 dated 25.06.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the remand order has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.
5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.102 of the booklet, it is clear that the remand order has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Rc.No.C2/15577/2021 dated 25.06.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sankar @ Sharpsankar @ Vettusankar, S/o.Arumugam, aged 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Failure to translate the remand order into vernacular language deprived the detenu of effective representation, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
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 court established that the right to effective representation in detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to provide crucial documents in a language known to the detenu impairs the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective r....
The failure to provide a correct translation of crucial documents in a language known to the detenu can impair the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the det....
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.
Failure to supply a crucial document in a language known to the detenu impairs the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention illegal.
The failure to provide a translated copy of a crucial document in a language known to the detenu impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering his continued detenti....
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
