Madras High Court
D.Selvam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1892/2023
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.1892/2023
D.Selvam .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Fort St Goerge, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Inspector of Police
Jolarpet Police Station
Thirupathur District. .. 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 made
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1892/2023
in detention order in C3/D.O/No.19 and Colrev-Colr/53501/2023-C3 dated
08.09.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as
illegal and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner / detenu Sindu @
Praveen Kumar, [male] son of Selvam, 21 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty to secure ends of
justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
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, father of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
08.09.2023 slapped on his son, 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 points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents pertaining to the
Arrest Memo found in pages No.15 to 18 are illegible and could not be
read. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the above ground and the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of
non furnishing of legible copies of 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 records, is unable to discard the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from pages
No.15 to 18 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, the documents
pertaining to the Arrest Memo in the ground case are not clear and the
said documents are illegible. The furnishing of illegible copies of the
documents would deprive the detenu of his valuable right in 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
08.09.2023 in C3/D.O.No.19/2023 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]
28.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Fort St Goerge, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Inspector of Police
Jolarpet Police Station
Thirupathur District.
5.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
