Allowed

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC9 Nov 2020HCP/989/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a detenu's uncle. The court set aside the detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 because the detaining authority provided illegible copies of documents, thereby depriving the detenu of the right to make an effective representation against his detention.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No. 203/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.11.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P. No. 989 of 2020

¶7

Selvaraj ... Petitioner /

¶8

Uncle of the detenue

¶9

vs
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison, Central prison, Vellore.

¶12

The Inspector of Police , L&O, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 18.03.2020 in MEMO.No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner Sister Son Udhayakumar, male aged 25 years, S/o.Manivannan, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the maternal uncle of Udhayakumar, aged 25 years, S/o.Manivannan, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶20

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶21

3.Though 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 detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶22

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially the confession statement pertaining to the similar case at Page Nos.485 to 489 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Udhayakumar, aged 25 years, S/o.Manivannan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

mmi/ssm

¶27

To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central prison, Vellore.
4.The Inspector of Police , L&O,
S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (law & order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.989 of 2020
NMI(CO)
RMP(08/12/2020)

¶28

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

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

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

Athilakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandra Vs the State Rep.by Its

Thami Munnisa Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sanchaiah Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

T.C.Veerappan Vs State Represented by

Kousalya Vs the Superintendent of Police