S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Nagammal – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary to Government – Respondent
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by 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 20.05.2024 in Memo No.546/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's son namely Surendar, male aged 22 years, S/o. Ravi, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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 learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in the language known to the detenue and thus the detenu is deprived from making effective representation.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.107 to 109 of Volume - I of t
''Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' reported in ''(1999) 2 SCC 413
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 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 effective communication of detention orders in a language understood by the detenu is essential for lawful preventive detention.
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 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 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 detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
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.