Madras High Court
Kalavathi vs State Rep.By The Secretary To The ... on 21 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1283/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1283/2023
Kalavathi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State rep.by The Secretary to the Government Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tambaram City.
3.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Guduvancherry, Chengalpet District.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1283/2023
culminating in the detention of Mr.K.Kathilaraju son of Kathila Thonga Rao
under the Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 20.06.2023 on the file
of the 2nd respondent herein made in order No.BCDFGISSSV No.27/2023
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein
to produce the body and person of the said detenu K.Kathila Raju son of
Kathila Thonga Rao before this Court and thereafter set him free at liberty
from the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Chandra Sekar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner, wife of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
20.06.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender"
under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
(3)Though several points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenu's mother tongue is Telugu and the
Detention Order, Grounds of Detention and the materials supplied to the
detenu in the form of Booklet, are only in English and Tamil language and
not in Telugu, the language known to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted
that non-furnishing of the vital documents in the language known to the
detenu, deprives the detenu of making effective representation against the
detention order to the authorities concerned.
(4)A perusal of the Detention Order, Grounds of Detention and the Booklet
would reveal that all the documents are in English and Tamil and not in
Telugu, the language known to the detenu. This serious
infirmity/material irregularity would deprive the detenu of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
(5)In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(1999) 2 SCC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with
similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order
remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue
therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether
failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a
language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's
further detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 as follows:
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 non-
supply 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)Thus, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-furnishing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the vital documents in the language known to the detenue and hence, the
same is liable to be quashed.
(7)In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2 nd
respondent dated 20.06.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.27/2023 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any
other case.
[SSSRJ] [SMJ]
21.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tambaram City.
3.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Guduvancherry, Chengalpet District.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
