Madras High Court
Surya vs State Rep. By on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1365 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1365 of 2023
Surya .. Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. By
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (Crime),
T-15 SRMC Police Station,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records
pertaining to the order of detention dated on 27.06.2023 passed by
the 2nd Respondent in No.168/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the
same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu
Thiru.Surya, S/o. Selvam, male, aged about 24 years, now
confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.1365 of 2023
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
The detenu Surya, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 27.06.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda"
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,
Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[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 grounds are raised in the petition, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of
Detention passed by the Detaining Authority suffers from non
application of mind as paragraph No.6 of the similar case bail order
in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 in the English version in the Booklet,
differs in the vernacular version. It is stated that there is an
improper translation pertaining to the adverse cases.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page Nos.258
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and 259, it is seen that bail order granted to the accused in a
similar case is furnished and in paragraph No.6, it is stated as
follows:-''......The murder case pending against the petitioner
is of the year 2012 and another case is of the year 2014...''.
However, in the translated copy of the said bail order in the
vernacular version, it is stated as follows:-'',th; kPJ Vw;fdnt
bfhiy tHf;F kw;Wk; bfhiy Kaw;rp tHf;F cs;sJ////// '' Hence,
it is seen that there is an improper translation of the similar case
bail order in the vernacular version.
5. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that
serious prejudice is caused to the detenu on account of improper
translation in making effective representation against the
Detention Order and that the Detention Order passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated.
6. 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. Since the Tamil version
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
detenue's further detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the
Constitution, observed that the detenue 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 detenue, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
7. 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.
8. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 in
No.168/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Surya, S/o.Selvam,
aged about 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.]
27.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
mmi
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (Crime),
T-15 SRMC Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
