S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.06.2024 in D.O. No. C2/19/2024 against the petitioner brother Sakthivel, male aged 42 years S/o. Arunachalam, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at liberty.
1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O. No. C2/19/2024 dated 29.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the translation copy of the Government Order (Certificate of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Case) has not been furnished to the detenu. The detenu has no knowledge in reading English and non translation of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenu from submitting effective representation, which is a valuable right under the Act.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Powanammal vs. Stat
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 mandated by Article 22(5).
The court established that the right to make an effective representation against detention includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenu.
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 right to effective representation in detention cases necessitates 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 detenu, reinforcing the safeguards under Article 22(5).
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 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 the right to effective representation in preventive detention cases includes the provision of documents in a language understood by the detenue.
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.