Allowed

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Jul 2021HCP/57/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order under TN Act 14 of 1982 because the accompanying arrest intimation was not translated into the vernacular language, thereby violating the detenu's right to effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.54/2020 dated 10.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.07.2021

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.57 of 2021

¶5

Muniyammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur 3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur 4.The Inspector of Police Periyapalayam Police Station Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District 5.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II Puzhal, Chennai-66 ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to direct the respondents to call for the records relating to the detention order Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No.54/2020, dated 10.11.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son viz., Kumar, the detenue aged about 30 years, S/o.Krishtaiya, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o.Krishtaiya. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 10.11.2020 in BCDFGISSSV No.54/2020, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed his counter affidavit and strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page No.19 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.

¶17

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

¶18

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.54/2020, dated 10.11.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o.Krishtaiya, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶21

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gya
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Periyapalayam Police Station,
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
6.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai-66.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.57 of 2021
jp-ii[co]
srg 07/07/2021

¶22

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

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Parashakthi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Aishwariya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Sarala Vs the Secretary to Government

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home

Annakili Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government