Allowed

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Nov 2021HCP/676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner challenged the detention of his son under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the detention order must be quashed because the remand order was not duly translated into vernacular language, thereby violating the detenu's right to make effective representation. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.85/2021 dated 19.03.2021 is set aside, and the detenu Vimalraj @ Jana is directed to be released forthwith.

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

H.C.P.No.676 of 2021

Selvaraj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai 4.The Inspector of Police J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Chennai ..Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in BCDFGISSSV No.85/2021 dated 19.03.2021 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu viz., Vimalraj @ Jana, aged about 24 years, S/o.Selvaraj, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.T.Gnana Banu

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

[Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J.]

¶15

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Vimalraj @ Jana, aged about 24 years, S/o.Selvaraj. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 19.03.2021 in BCDFGISSSV No.85/2021, 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.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶17

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, she has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the remand order 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.

¶18

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially page Nos.119 and 120 of the booklet, it is clear that the remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶19

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.85/2021, dated 19.03.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Vimalraj @ Jana, aged about 24 years, S/o.Selvaraj, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

gya

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai

¶27

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai

¶28

5.The Inspector of Police J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Chennai

¶29

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

¶30

H.C.P.No.676 of 2021

¶31

EU (CO) K.RK. (10.11.2021)

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj v. State Rep by

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

Muniraj, Aged 38 Years, Vs State by:

K.Sathiyamoorthy, Vs State Rep. by

Rajammal Vs State Rep.by

Chitra Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Narayanan Vs State Rep by

Arul Selvi Vs State Rep.by