S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Kokila – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.01/Black Marketer/Salem City/2024 dated 01.04.2024 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue, Thiru.Senthilkumar @ Ganja Senthilkumar, S/o. Chinnathambi, aged about 46 years, now confined at Central Prison Salem, before this Court and set at liberty.]
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 01.04.2024 is under challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Page No.70 of the booklet served on the detenue is illegible. Thus, the detenue has been deprived of submitting representation in an effective manner.
4. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 2
The court established that effective representation against detention orders requires the provision of comprehensible documents to the detenue.
The court established that effective communication of detention orders in a language understood by the detenu is essential for lawful preventive detention.
The right to effective representation in preventive detention cases necessitates that all relevant documents be provided in a language understood by the detenu.
The court established that the right to make an effective representation against detention includes the right to comprehensible documentation.
The court established that the right to effective representation in preventive detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The court established that effective representation against detention orders requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenu, as mandated by Article 22(5).
The court established that the right to effective representation in preventive detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The court established that effective communication of detention orders in a comprehensible language is essential for upholding the rights of the detenu under Article 22(5).
The court established that effective representation against detention orders requires communication in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court established that the right to effective representation in preventive detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.