S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
M. Porselvi – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise 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 records relating the detention order No. BCDFGISSSV No. 549/2024, dated 20.05.2024, passed by the second respondent under the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Giridharan S/o. Munusamy aged about 23 years, the detenue now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set aside the petitioner's Son Giridharan S/o. Munusamy aged about 23 years the detenue herein 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.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 enclosed at page Nos. 107 to 109 of volume - I of the booklet served on the detenue has not been translated in the language known to the detenue and thus the detenue is deprived from making effective representation.
4. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co
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 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 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 in preventive detention cases requires documents to be provided 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 detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
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.