S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Abi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and 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, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.512/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 15.05.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce namely Praveen Kumar @ Karukka Appu son of Sridhar, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent is under challenge 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 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 Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safegu
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 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 documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenu, as mandated by Article 22(5).
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 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 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 includes the provision of documents 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.
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.