Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Ambika – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and 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 27.05.2024 in Rc.No.C2/19/2024 against the petitioner son Suriya, Male aged 24 years S/o. Parasuraman, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.]
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Suriya aged about 24 years now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/19/2024 dated 27.05.2024, branding him as "Bootlegger" 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 booklet served on the detenue would reveal that the documents enclosed in page nos.30 to 33 are illegible.
4. In view of the fa
The court established that the right to effective representation is fundamental, necessitating the provision of clear and comprehensible documents to the detenue.
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 representation against detention orders requires the provision of comprehensible documents to the detenue.
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 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 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 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 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.
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
