Allowed

Jeba Malar v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Madras HC12 Nov 2021HCP/801/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the order because the arrest intimation was not properly translated in the vernacular language, denying the detenu effective representation. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.04.2021 is set aside, and the detenu Isaac is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Jeba Malar Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

H.C.P.No.801 of 2021

¶7

Jeba Malar Petitioner/Wife of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1 State of Tamil Nadu

¶10

rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶11

2 The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Vepery, Chennai 600 007

¶12

3 The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai 600 066

¶13

4 The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV No.104/2021 dated 09.04.2021 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Isaac, S/o Duraipandi, aged about 31 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

For petitioner Mr. K. Bommuraj

¶16

For respondents Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Isaac, S/o Duraipandi, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 09.04.2021 in BCDFGISSSV No.104/2021, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter affidavit and strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶24

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.245 and 247 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.104/2021, dated 09.04.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Isaac, S/o Duraipandi, aged about 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

gya

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

1	The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2	The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
3	The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Vepery, Chennai 600 007
4	The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai 600 066
5	The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai
6	The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
	H.C.P.No.801 of 2021

¶33

GJ(CO) CB(16/11/2021)

¶34

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

Jeba Malar v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeba Malar v. State of Tamilnadu, 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

Kumar Vs State Rep by

Radhamani Vs the State Rep by

Murugan Vs State Rep by

Gunashankari Vs the Secretary to the Government

D.Valarmathi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Jegan Raj Vs State of Tamil Nadu