S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Valarmathi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the 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, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 21.05.2024 in D.O.No.25/2024-C2 against the petitioner husband Ramachandran, Male aged 32 years S/o. Madhavan, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue 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 accident report has not been translated and the documents enclosed at Page Nos.167 and 168 of the booklet served on the detenue regarding dismissal of bail order has not been translated in the language known to the detenue, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenue to submit his representation in an effective manner.
4. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. Stat
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 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 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 make an effective representation against detention includes the provision of documents 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 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 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.