S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Kala – 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 in BCDFGISSSV. No. 543/2024 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 petitioner daughter one named Mr.Murugan @ Kili S/o. Selvaraj aged about 27 years now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Puzhal before this Court and set 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.53 and 54 of volume - II 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 V
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 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 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 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.
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 right to effective representation in detention cases necessitates 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.