Allowed

R.Parashakthi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC2 Jul 2021HCP/2296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition to quash an order detaining her son as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the order was invalid as powers were delegated without translating them into vernacular language, thus failing to enable effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in C.No.55/G/IS/2020 dated 05.10.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

R.Parashakthi Vs State of Tamilnadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2296 of 2020

¶6

R.Parasakthi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶9

Fort St.George,

¶10

Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City.

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore City. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer:-

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detention dated 05.10.2020 in detention order C.No.55/G/IS/2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu R.Vivek Prabhu, son of Rajan, aged about 28 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thamaraiselvan

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the mother of R.Vivek Prabhu, son of Rajan, aged about 28 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.55/G/IS/2020 dated 05.10.2020, 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.

¶22

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 records carefully.

¶23

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 delegation of powers issued to the detaining authority has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted 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 these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.

¶25

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.366 & 367 of the booklet, it is clear that the delegation of powers issued to the detaining authority has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.55/G/IS/2020 dated 05.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., R.Vivek Prabhu, son of Rajan, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

nsd To

¶32

The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore City. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.2296 of 2020

¶33

VSNII(CO) CT/23/07/2021

¶34

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

R.Parashakthi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Parashakthi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

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.Ravi Vs Dev Anand Vijayan

Nirmala Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Aishwariya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Sarala Vs the Secretary to Government

Puzhalvendan Vs The Additional Director General of Prisons