S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order in BCDFGISSSV.No.208/2024 dated 18.03.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner friend one named Mr. Jothiganesh @ Jothi S/o. John Kennedy aged about 32 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.]
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Memo BCDFGISSSV No.208/2024 dated 18.03.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the translation copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenu. The detenu has no knowledge in reading English and non translation of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenu from submitting effective representation, which is a valuable right under the Act.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Powanam
The court established that the right to effective representation against detention includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu.
The court established that the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu, reinforcing the safeguards under Article 22(5).
The right to effective representation in detention cases necessitates the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The court established that the right to make an effective representation against detention includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu.
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).
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 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 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 language understood by the detenu is essential for lawful preventive detention.
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.