Allowed

Leema Rose v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC17 Jul 2020HCP/7/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a detention order passed against her son. The Court found that the documents relied upon for the order were not supplied to the detenu, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the detention order was quashed as it was vitiated by non-compliance with constitutional mandates.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Second Respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for another case.

Leema Rose Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.07.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

H.C.P.No.7 of 2020

¶7

Leema Rose ... Petitioner/Mother of detenue

¶8

Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2019 in Memo No. 811/BCDFGISSSV/2019 against the petitioner Son Gopalakrishnan @ Gopal, aged 24 years, S/o. Udhyasuriyan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Senthilvel

¶11

For Respondents: Mr. R. Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶12

The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

¶13

2.The mother of the detenu has filed this petition challenging the detention order passed against her son in Memo No. 811/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 26.11.2019 by the Second Respondent, terming him as 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14

¶14

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

¶15

of 1982 as the detenu has got a solitary case registered against him.

¶16

3.Heard Mr. S. Senthilvel, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.

¶17

4.After hearing the learned counsel and on perusing the records, this Court is able to find that the relied documents for passing the detention order has not been supplied to the detenu, which is mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore the same vitiates the detention order and this Petition has to be necessarily allowed.

¶18

5.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the Second Respondent in Memo No. 811/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 26.11.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gopalakrishnan @ Gopal, aged 24 years, S/o. Udhyasuriyan who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶21

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

Ay To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶23

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai 9

¶24

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

¶25

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶26

H.C.P.No.7 of 2020

¶27

RLD(CO) GN(30/07/2020)

¶28

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

Leema Rose v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leema Rose v. the Secretary to the Government

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

S.Haribabu Vs the Secretary to Government

Mani Vs the Secretary to the Government

J.Priya Vs the Secretary to Government

Megala Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Kesavan Vs State Rep by

Moorthy Vs State Rep. by