Madras High Court
K.Chellakani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
K.Chellakani ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in
M.H.S.Confdl.No.83/2023, dated 12.08.2023, on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the petitioner's bother, namely, Pandaram @ Baskar, son of
Jeyaraman, aged about 25 years, now confined in Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the sister of the detenu viz., Pandaram @ Baskar, son of Jeyaraman, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83/2023, dated 12.08.2023, 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.
____________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
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.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of incomplete translation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accident register available at Page No.37 of the Booklet has not been fully translated in the vernacular language and it is incomplete translation, which is available in Page No.39. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the accident register available at Page No.37 of the book has not been fully translated in the vernacular language and the translation of the said document is incomplete, which is available at Page No.39 of the Booklet. This furnishing of incomplete translation copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. ____________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making ____________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023 an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.
...
...
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the accident register relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.37 of the booklet has not been fully translated in the vernacular language, which is available in Page No.39 of the booklet. This furnishing of incomplete translation copy of the document in the vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order. ____________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83/2023, dated 12.08.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pandaram @ Baskar, son of Jeyaraman, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
17.04.2024
(1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
____________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
____________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.
krk H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023 17.04.2024 (1/2) ____________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis