Madras High Court
M.Maharasi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.196 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.196 of 2024
M.Maharasi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli
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.109/2023, dated 15.09.2023, on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the petitioner's son, namely, Esakkipandi, son of Muthukutty,
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.196 of 2024
aged about 20 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 mother of the detenu viz., Esakkipandi, son
of Muthukutty, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.109/2023, dated
15.09.2023, 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 order available at
Page No.161 of Volume-I and the document available at Page Nos.35 to 37 of
Volume-II of the booklet. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the translated copy of the remand order dated 29.08.2023 in the
vernacular language was furnished at Page No.165 of Volume-I of the booklet,
the English copy of the said remand order available at Page No.161 is illegible,
thereby the petitioner is unable to understand whether the translated copy of
the remand order in the vernacular language available at Page No.165 is the
correct translation of the remand order available at page No.161 of the
booklet. Further, the document available at Page Nos.35 to 37 of Volume-II of
the booklet is also illegible. 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 order dated
29.08.2023 in the vernacular language at Page No.165 of Volume-I of the
booklet. However, the remand report in English available at Page No.161 is
illegible. Therefore, it cannot be understand that the translation copy of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
remand order in the vernacular language available at Page No.165 is the
correct translation of the remand order available at Page No.161 of Volume-I of
the booklet. Furthermore, the document available at Page Nos.35 to 37 of
Volume-II of the booklet is also not legible. This furnishing of illegible copy of
the documents 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.161 of Volume-I
and at Page Nos.35 to 37 of Volume-II of the booklet, 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 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.109/2023, dated 15.09.2023, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Esakkipandi, son of
Muthukutty, aged about 20 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.]
05.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
5.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
05.04.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
