IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ
Nagalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu, Gopalarishnan, male aged 34 years, S/o. Kanthaiyan, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.12.2024 issued against her brother, branding him as "Goonda" under theTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the seizure mahazar, has not been properly translated. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, particularly page No.137, this Court finds that a copy of the seizure
Improper translation of critical documents in detention proceedings violates the right to effective representation, rendering continued detention illegal.
Failure to provide translated documents to a detenu violates the right to an effective representation, leading to quashing of the detention order.
Failure to provide translated material documents to a detenu invalidates the detention order, upholding the right to effective representation under Article 22(5).
The failure to provide a translated version of a material document in detention cases violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court established that proper translation of detention grounds is essential for the detenue's right to effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5).
Non-supply of arrest intimation in detenu's language violates Article 22(5), vitiating preventive detention order.
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as per Article 22(5).
The court established that effective representation requires proper translation of detention grounds, as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court established that effective representation requires documents to be provided in a language understood by the detenue, as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
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.