Allowed

Nanthini v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC13 Jul 2021HCP/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by wife of a detenu challenging an order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Court quashed the detention order because the remand extension order from the ground case was not enclosed in the booklet provided to the detenu, preventing effective representation. Detenu directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the detention order dated 17.12.2020 and direct the detenu to be released forthwith.

Nanthini Vs the Secretary to the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1 of 2021

¶6

Nanthini .. Petitioner/Wife of the detenue

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

¶10

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66. 4. The Inspector of Police (L & O), T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondents 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 17.12.2020 in Memo No.517/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner's husband Sathishkumar, aged about 30

¶11

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

¶12

years, son of Gangadurai, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel

¶14

For Respondents Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, : Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶17

The petitioner is the wife of Sathishkumar, aged about 30 years, son of Gangadurai, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.517/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 17.12.2020, 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.

¶18

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the

¶19

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

¶20

records carefully.

¶21

Though several grounds have been raised, learned

¶22

counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.

¶23

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.517/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 17.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sathishkumar, aged about 30 years, son of

¶25

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

¶26

Gangadurai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his

¶27

detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

nsd

¶32

¶33

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 – 66. 4. The Inspector of Police (L & O), T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

H.C.P.No.1 of 2021

¶35

SR-II(CO) SU(13/07/2021)

¶36

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

Nanthini v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanthini 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

C.Pappa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mahalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Visalachi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Porikllai Vs State Rep.by

Rani Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Vediyappan Vs State by