Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Manjula – 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. 609/BCDFGISSSV/2024, Dated 30.05.2024 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, Surya @ Gajini Surya, aged 21 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 Surya @ Gajini Surya S/o. Rajakumar aged about 21 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.05.2024 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. 82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 has not been translated in
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 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 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 the right to effective representation is fundamental, necessitating the provision of clear and comprehensible documents to the detenue.
The court established that effective representation in preventive detention cases requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue.
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly adhered to, including 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
