AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 232 wordsSunder Mohan, J
The wife of the detenu - Chandrasekaran, aged 26 years, S/o.Natarajan, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 22.09.2025, branding him as a 'GOONDA' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).
We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for respondents.
From the submissions and perusal of the records, it is seen that the translated copy of the arrest intimation that has been relied upon by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu. Admittedly, the detenu is acquainted only with Tamil. It is well settled that if the relied upon documents are not furnished in the language known to the detenu, his right to make effective representation would be denied. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents in the language known to the detenu renders the detenu's detention illegal.
Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order in C.M.P.No.83/Goonda/2025(M1) dated 22.09.2025 is set aside.
The detenu, viz., Chandrasekaran, aged 26 years, S/o.Natarajan, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.