Madras High Court
Parthiban vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 4 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1573 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1573 of 2023
Parthiban ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
District Collector Office
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Palayamkottai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in
M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023, on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1573 of 2023
the body of the detenu, namely, Parthiban, son of Kadalmani @ Kadarkari,
aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
for Mr.K.Sivabalan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Parthiban, son of Kadalmani @
Kadarkari, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023,
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus
petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed
on the ground of non-funishing of legible copy of the remand report.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the translated copy
of the remand report dated 25.06.2023 in the vernacular language was
furnished at Page No.349 of the booklet, the English copy of the said remand
report available at Page No.347 is illegible, thereby the petitioner is unable to
understand whether the translated copy of the remand report in the
vernacular language available at Page No.349 is the correct translation of the
remand report available at page No.347 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted
that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority has furnished translated copy of the remand report dated
25.06.2023 in the vernacular language at Page No.349 of the booklet.
However, the remand report in English available at page No.347 is illegible.
Therefore, it cannot be understand that the translation copy of the remand
report in the vernacular language available at Page No.349 is the correct
translation of the remand report available at Page No.347. This furnishing of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
illegible copy of the remand report available at Page No.347 of the booklet
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
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a
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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
nonsupply 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible copy of the
document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.347 of the Booklet
to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of
Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in
quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Parthiban, son of Kadalmani
@ Kadarkari, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless
his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
04.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
District Collector Office,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
krk
04.04.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
