Quashed

Kaleem v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC14 Jun 2014HCP/2194/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for Habeas Corpus challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Court held that the order was unsustainable because the detaining authority relied on a bail order furnished only in Tamil without an English version, thereby infringing the petitioner's right to effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order was quashe

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.09.2013 is quashed, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless custody is required for another case.

Kaleem Vs the Secretary to the — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2014

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶4

H.C.P.No.2194 of 2013

¶5

Kaleem ...Petitioner

¶6

The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 10.09.2013 in Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013, against the petitioner Kaleem, M/A, 23, son of Kamaal, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

The petitioner is the detenu herein. He has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2^nd respondent passed in Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 10.09.2013.

¶9

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

S.	Police	Station & Crime No.	Section of Law
No.
1	Thirupat Station,	hur Town Police Crime No.263/2013	379 IPC
2	K-11	C.M.B.T. Police	379 IPC
	Station	Crime No.539/2013
3	K-11 Station	C.M.B.T. Police Crime No.737/2013	392 IPC

¶12

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station in Crime No.746/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶13

Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.1677/2012 granted in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012 is furnished only in the Tamil version and not in the English version, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above submission.

¶15

For better appreciation of the case, relevant paragraph of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “4. ... The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Kaleem is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.539/2013, 737/2013 and 746/2013 before the appropriate court. Similarly, in a case registered under Section 379 IPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee granted bail for T-6, Avadi Police Station in Crime No.1677/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012. ...”

¶16

On a perusal of the detention order and the booklet, it is seen that the similar bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, in Crime No.1677/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012, relied on by the detaining authority, is furnished only in Tamil and the English version of the same is not available in the booklet. Generally, whichever document is relied on by the detaining authority, it must be furnished to the detenu in English and in the vernacular language. Absence of furnishing the same will deprive the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove,

¶17

the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶18

In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent vide Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining the detenu, namely Kaleem is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar

¶21

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abe
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai-66.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

¶22

H.C.P. No.2194 of 2013 rbd(CO) PSI (08.08.2014)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kaleem v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Arulanandaraj Vs the Joint Secretary

Padma Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Devi Vs the Governemtn of Tamil Nadu

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karthik Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kesavaramanujam Vs the Secretary to the