Allowed

Sharmila Banu v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC19 Jul 2021HCP/2181/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu, setting aside the detention order primarily because the arrest intimation was not properly translated into the vernacular language, thus depriving the detenu of effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 26.10.2020 in Cr.M.P.No.30/Goonda/2020 is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Sharmila Banu Vs the Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.2181 of 2020

¶6

Sharmila Banu

¶7

..Petitioner/Wife of Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶10

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison-Coimbatore Coimbatore District

¶13

5.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station Tiruppur District. ..Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 26.10.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein made in proceedings Memo No.Cr.M.P.No.30/Goonda/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband viz., Mubarak Ali, aged about 27 years, S/o.Late Abdul Majeeth, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from detention, now the detenu is detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Mubarak Ali, aged about 27 years, S/o.Late Abdul Majeeth. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 26.10.2020 in Cr.M.P.No. 30/Goonda/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 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶21

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 arrest intimation has not been properly 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.

¶22

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.201 to 203 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been properly translated in vernacular language. 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 Cr.M.P.No.30/Goonda/2020, dated 26.10.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Mubarak Ali, aged about 27 years, S/o.Late Abdul Majeeth, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

gya

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George,Chennai-9

¶31

2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶32

3.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur

¶33

4.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District

¶34

5.The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison-Coimbatore Coimbatore District

¶35

6.The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station Tiruppur District

¶36

7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

¶37

H.C.P.No.2181 of 2020

¶38

SVI(CO) EU 20/07/2021

¶39

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

Sharmila Banu v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Banu v. the Secretary to 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

Jahangir Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Balakrishnan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Raniammal Vs the Secretary to Government

A.Ramkumar Vs the Secretary to Govt

B.Kowsalaya Vs the Secretary to Government

Susheela Vs the Superintendent of Police