Madras High Court
V.Pandidurai vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1567 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.1567 of 2023
V.Pandidurai ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli ... 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.74/2023, dated 26.10.2023, on the file of the second
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1567 of 2023
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the detenu, namely, Subbaiah, son of Krishnan, aged about 35
years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
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 cousin of the detenu viz., Subbaiah, son of
Krishnan, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.74/2023, dated 26.10.2023,
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 that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the Special
Report relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.23 of
the booklet and the endorsement made by the authority concerned for
receiving the said document, which is available at the same page, has not
been properly translated in the vernacular language. Hence, it is submitted
that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.23 of the
Booklet, which is the Special Report, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and it
is also found that the endorsement made by the authority concerned for
receiving the said document, which is available at the same page, has not
been properly translated in the vernacular language. This furnishing of
illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order
of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.23 of the Booklet
and the improper translation of the endorsement made by the authority
concerned for receiving the said document, which is available at the same
page, in the vernacular language. This furnishing of illegible copy and
improper translation in the vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired
his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the
impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is
ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 in M.H.S.Confdl No.74/2023, dated 26.10.2023, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Subbaiah, son of
Krishnan, aged about 35 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 Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
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
