Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Seniyamma – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home) – 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 relating to the impugned order No.52/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 22.05.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce namely Ajith son of Lakshmanan, aged about 25 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Ajith, S/o.Lakshmanan confined at Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.52/BCDFGISSSV/2024 branding him as "Goonda" under 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. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the copy of the special report served on the detenue would reveal that no
A detention order can be quashed if procedural irregularities, such as an undated special report, infringe upon the detenue's right to make an effective representation.
The absence of a date on a special report in a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 can invalidate the order due to the resultant prejudice to the detenue's right to representation.
The court established that the right to effective representation in detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order under which the individual was held is revoked by the competent authority.
A Habeas Corpus Petition becomes moot when the detention order it seeks to challenge has been revoked by the appropriate authority.
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 the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue, as per constitutional safeguards.
The court established that the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue, impacting the legality of detention.
The court affirmed that the right to effective representation includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
