Madras High Court
P.Kamatchi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1689/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1689/2023
P.Kamatchi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St Goerge, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW-Poonamallee
Avadi City. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent pertaining to the
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1689/2023
order made in BCDFGISSSV No.156/2023 dated 21.06.2023 in detain the
detenu under 2[e] of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Drug Offender and
quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Pandi @
Aruva Pandi, son of Rajendran, aged about 30 years who is detained at
Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
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
21.06.2023 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
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority has
relied upon a similar case bail order in Crl.MP.No.1842/2020 to arrive at
the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be release on bail in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the ground case. However, the similar case bail order furnished to the
detenu in the Booklet in the vernacular language is illegible and could not
be read. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed
on the ground of non-furnishing of legible copy of the vital document,
depriving the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation
against the detention order to the authorities concerned.
(4)This Court, upon examination of the Booklet, is unable to discard the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the
Booklet furnished to the detenu, in particular, pages No.257 to 259 the
bail order pertaining to the similar case in Crl.MP.No.1842/2020 in the
vernacular language, is not clear and the said document is illegible. The
furnishing of illegible copy of the document would deprive the detenu of
his valuable right to make 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(6) In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view
of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
(7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.06.2023 in No.156/BCDFGISSSV/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]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St Goerge, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW-Poonamallee
Avadi City.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
