Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Subbulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo No. 585/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 27.05.2024 in detaining the detenue under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, Nagaraj, aged 23 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Nagaraj S/o. Ramadoss aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.05.2024 slapped on her 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No. 11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in the language known to the d
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 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) of the Constitution.
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.
The court established that effective representation in preventive detention cases requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue.
The failure to provide translated documents to a detenu violates their right to make an effective representation, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
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).
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention, particularly the right to understand the grounds for detention, are essential for ensuring personal liberty.
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
