S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Priya – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary – 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, calling for the records in D.O.No.C2/17/2024 dated 28.06.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband Palanisamy, male aged about 35 years, S/o. Murugesan, who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore 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 submitted that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.98, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 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 No.1 & 2 of Volume II of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.98, Home, Pro
Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' reported in ''(1999) 2 SCC 413
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 requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
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 providing documents in a language understood by the detenue is essential for ensuring the right to make an effective representation against 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 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 includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu, as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court established that proper translation of detention grounds is essential for the detenue's right to effective representation, 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.