Allowed

A.Ramkumar v. the Secretary to Govt

Madras HC19 Jul 2021HCP/2500/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking habeas corpus. The court held that because the remand report was not translated and furnished to the detenu, preventing effective representation, the detention order was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 20.11.2020 is set aside, and the detenu directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.

A.Ramkumar Vs the Secretary to Govt — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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.2500 of 2020

¶6

A.Ramkumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Internal Security North Block, New Delhi 110 001

¶9

2.The Lieutenant Governor Raj Nivas, Puducherry

¶10

3.The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised Officer O/o.The District Magistrate 1^st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry 605 009

¶11

4.The Superintendent of Police (West) Puducherry

¶12

5.The Chief Superintendent of Jail Central Prison, Kalapet Puducherry 6.The Station House Officer Villianur Police Station Puducherry .. Respondents

¶13

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 detention order in No.17/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2020 dated 20.11.2020 passed by the 3^rd respondent under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2010) and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's friend viz., Thadi Iyyanar @ Iyyanar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Sekar, now confined in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner: Mr.U.Yuvaraj

¶16

For R1 : Mr.S.S.Rajaniradjan

¶17

Sr. Panel Counsel, Central Government For R2 to R5 : Mr.V.Balamurugane

¶18

Addl. Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the friend of the detenu viz., Thadi Iyyanar @ Iyyanar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Sekar. The detenu has been detained by the 3rd respondent by his order dated 20.11.2020 in No. 17/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2020, holding him to be a "DANGEROUS PERSON", as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2010). 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 Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the remand report dated 17.11.2020 was not translated and the same 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.

¶24

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand report dated 17.11.2020 was not translated and the same has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above material 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in 17/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2020, dated 20.11.2020,

¶26

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

¶27

passed by the 3^rd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Thadi Iyyanar @ Iyyanar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Sekar, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,

¶34

Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

¶35

2.The Lieutenant Governor,

¶36

Raj Nivas, Puducherry.

¶37

3.The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised Officer, O/o.The District Magistrate,

¶38

1^st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry 605 009.

¶39

4.The Superintendent of Police (West), Puducherry.

¶40

5.The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶41

6.The Station House Officer, Villianur Police Station, Puducherry.

¶42

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶43

H.C.P.No.2500 of 2020

¶44

smi[co]

¶45

srg 20/07/2021

¶46

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

A.Ramkumar v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramkumar v. the Secretary to Govt

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

B.Kowsalaya Vs the Secretary to Government

Sharmila Banu Vs the Secretary to Government

Susheela Vs the Superintendent of Police