A.Jebasthiyammal Gracy, v. Union of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court disposed of an Habeas Corpus petition seeking the release of a Malaysian citizen allegedly detained in Malaysia, holding that further orders were unnecessary as sufficient steps were being taken by respondents to trace his whereabouts.
What did the court decide?
No relief; petition closed as sufficient steps were being taken to locate the detenu.
What the court decided
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2018 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.437 of 2018
A.Jebasthiyammal Gracy ... Petitioner
vs.
- Union of India rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 100 001. 2. Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government, Overseas Indian Affairs Dept., New Delhi. 3. The High Commission, Indian Embassy, Level – 28, No.1, Jalan Mon't Kiara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 4. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
- The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
- The Superintendant of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
- The Inspector of Police, Thiruvegampathur Police Station, Sivagangai District.
- John Jeyabalan A/L.N.Dorairaj
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus should be issued to raise a Malaysian citizen illegally detained abroad.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A.Jebasthiyammal Gracy
- respondent
Union of India rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs
- respondent
Union of India rep. by Secretary to Government, Overseas Indian Affairs Dept.
- respondent
The High Commission, Indian Embassy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- respondent
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court