S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Uma Maheshwari – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No. 662/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 11.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely Manikandan, S/o. Jayapal, aged 30 years, as GOONDA, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. 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 statement obtained from the relative of the detenue, which is enclosed at Page No. 145 of the typeset of paper is undated. Further, the document at Page No. 146 is illegible. Thus, the detenue has been deprived of submitting representation in an effective manner.
4. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeg
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 against detention orders requires the provision of comprehensible documents to 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 rights under Article 22(5) require documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenu.
The court established that effective communication of detention orders in a language understood by the detenu is essential for lawful preventive 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 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 effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as mandated by Article 22(5).
The right to effective representation in detention cases necessitates 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.