S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Renugadevi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by, The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise – 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 records in Memo No. 521/BCDFGISSSV/2024 passed by the second respondent on 16.05.2024, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce petitioner husband Senthil son of Chandran aged about 44 years, before this Court, who now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal and set him at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024, enclosed at page nos.84 and 85 of the booklet served on the detenue has not been translated in the language known to the detenue and thus the detenu is deprived from making effective representation.
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 '(
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 communication of detention orders in a comprehensible language is essential for upholding the rights of the detenu under Article 22(5).
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 communication in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
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 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 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 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 the right to make an 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.