Allowed

Bharathi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Dec 2020HCP/1487/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu under the Tamil Nadu Bootleggers' Control Act. The court quashed and set aside the detention order because the accompanying ground case laboratory report was not translated into vernacular language, thereby denying the detenu the opportunity to make effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the second respondent on 18.06.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Bharathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.12.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P. No. 1487 of 2020

¶6

Bharathi ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore. ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, relating to Petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 18.06.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in D.O.No.51/2020-C2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said Petitioner's husband namely Elumalai, son of Arumugam, aged 55 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now Petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Vellore.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner

¶11

:^{Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah} for Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶12

For Respondents

¶13

:^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶16

The petitioner is the wife of Elumalai, son of Arumugam, aged 55 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.51/2020-C2 dated 18.06.2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶18

3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the ground case lab report has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶19

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos. 37 & 38 of the booklet, it is clear that the ground case lab report has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶20

5.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.51/2020-C2 dated 18.06.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Elumalai, son of Arumugam, aged 55 years, is directed

¶21

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

¶22

to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

mmi/ssm

¶27

¶28

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. 4. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. H.C.P. No.1487 of 2020

¶29

CO(NMI) BDL/18/01/2021

¶30

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

Bharathi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathi v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

Amsa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Anjammal Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

P.Rajathi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Kathija Vs the Commissioner of Police

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan Vs State, Represented by

Arasaiye Vs the District Magistrate Cum Authorised Officer