Allowed

Narayanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Nov 2021HCP/916/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the order solely because the remand details were not properly translated into vernacular language, preventing the detenu from making effective representation. The detenu was ordered released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.82/2021 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith.

Narayanan Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

¶5

H.C.P.No.916 of 2021

¶6

Narayanan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State rep. by

¶9

The Secretary to Government

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

¶11

Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai

¶13

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

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Chennai ...Respondents

¶15

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.82/2021 dated 19.03.2021 on the file of
the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to produce the detenu viz., Gowthaman @ KGF, aged 25
years, S/o.Narayanan, now confined at Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms.T.Gnana Banu

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz.,
Gowthaman @ KGF, aged 25 years, S/o.Narayanan. The detenu has

¶21

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

¶22

been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 19.03.2021
in BCDFGISSSV No.82/2021, 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.

¶23

2. 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.

¶24

3. 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.

¶25

4. 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.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.82/2021, dated
19.03.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The
detenu viz., Gowthaman @ KGF, aged 25 years, S/o.Narayanan, is
directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

gya

¶32

To

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

3.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

¶40

H.C.P.No.916 of 2021

¶41

RLD(CO)
RVM(10/11/2021)

¶42

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

Narayanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan 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

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

Arul Selvi Vs State Rep.by