Kalaiselvi v. State Rep. by
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ of habeas corpus allowed. Detention order quashed solely because the arrest intimation was not properly translated into vernacular language, depriving the detenu of effective representation. Detenu directed to be released.
What did the court decide?
Detention order quashed and released. Detenu to be produced before this Court and set at liberty unless required for other case.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.07.2020
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 2906 of 2019 Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in S.C.No.31/2019 dated 03.12.2019 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Sabari @ Sabarinathan, S/o.Jayakumar, aged about 36 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem,before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajanikanth For Respondents Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, : Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of Sabari @ Sabarinathan, S/o.Jayakumar, aged about 36 years who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in S.C.No.31/2019 dated 03.12.2019, holding him to be a "Goondas", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the arrest intimation was not properly translated in vernacular language?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to call for records and quash the detention order?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kalaiselvi
- respondent
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
- respondent
District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court