Madras High Court
Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 28 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1342/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1342/2023
Murugan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Thamdrampet Police Station
Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1342/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the
detention made in DO.No.68/2023-C2 dated 30.06.2023 on the file of the
2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu Thiru Kannan @ SSS Kannan, son of Subramani, aged
36 years, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Selvaraj
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, brother of the detenu , has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
30.06.2023 slapped on his brother, branding him as "Goonda" 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 grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated as the detenu is deprived of a fair
opportunity to make an effective representation on account of the fact that
the Remand Order in the English version has not been translated in the
vernacular language.
(4)On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds the English version of the
Remand Order in page No.71. However, the said vital document is not
made available to the detenu in the vernacular language. It is in the said
circumstances, this Court finds that the detenu is deprived of his right to
make effective representation to the authorities concerned as against the
Detention Order.
(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. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to
the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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)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 detenion order is
liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
30.06.2023 in D.O.No.68/2023-C2 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.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.]
28.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Thamdrampet Police Station
Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
