S SENGKODI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the practising advocate and she has filed this petition seeking the release of her client Sundaramoorthy, S/o.Vediyappan, who is alleged to have been illegally detained by the respondents.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, a strong objection regarding the maintainability of this petition has been raised on the ground that the Advocate engaged by the detenu, since cannot be called as a 'friend or relative' of the detenu and that the Advocate being the Officer of the Court, the petitioner, a practising Advocate, cannot enter into the shoes of her client and she cannot be a substitute for her client. It has further been submitted on the part of the respondents that the detenu is an under trial prisoner and he is in judicial custody in the cases, wherein he is an accused and there is no illegal detention, as has been submitted on the part of the petitioner and would pray to dismiss this petition.

(3.) THERE cannot be any doubt regarding the above proposition laid down by the Honourable Apex Court. It is no doubt a legal principle that not only the detenu but any friend or relative of the detenu can knock the doors of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging his detention. In these circumstances, a question would arise as to 'whether an Advocate engaged by a client for some legal redressal, can enter into the shoes of the client substituting himself for the client and file a petition for the release of the client'.