S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Ashokkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – 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 of pertaining to the order of detention dated 14.06.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent in TPDA 5947 in Memo No.674/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same and produce the detenue namely Madhusudanan Jan Kit Son of Ashokkumar Jan Kit is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set at liberty.
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Madhusudanan, aged about 25 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.06.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
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 booklet served on the detenue has been improperly translated. More specifically, the index annexed along with the typeset has not been properly translated, which resulted in causi
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention, particularly the right to understand the grounds for detention, are essential for ensuring personal liberty.
Procedural violations in preventive detention, particularly regarding the translation of documents, can render a detention order illegal under Article 22.
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly adhered to, including the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
The court established that the right to effective representation in detention cases includes the provision of documents 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 per Article 22(5).
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as per 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 effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, 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 detenue, as per constitutional safeguards.
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.