S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
J. Sudha – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) 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, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order BCDFGISSSV.No.542/2024 dated 20.05.2024 on the file of the respondent No. 2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner son one named Mr.Vikki @ Pallu Vikki @ Vignesh S/o. Jayasankar aged about 25 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set at liberty.
The impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings BCDFGISSSV.No.542/2024 dated 20.05.2024 is sought to be quashed 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 has not been translated in the language known to the detenue and thus the detenu is deprived from making effective representation.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page
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 in preventive detention cases requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenu.
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
The court established that effective communication of detention orders in a language understood by the detenu is essential for lawful preventive detention.
The court established that effective representation in preventive detention cases requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue.
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 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 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 against detention includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu.
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.