Madras High Court
K.Bagyaraj vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.161 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.161 of 2024
K.Bagyaraj ... 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 Magistrate and
District Collector
Virudhunagar District
Virudhunagar
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Jail
Madurai ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.161 of 2024
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
Cr.M.P.No.30/2023, dated 28.10.2023, 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, Krishnaprabu, son of Pakkiyaraj, aged about 25
years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him
at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan
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 father of the detenu viz., Krishnaprabu, aged
about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in Cr.M.P.No.30/2023, dated 28.10.2023, 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-furnishing of legible and
translated copy of the remand order in the vernacular language. According to
the petitioner, the remand order passed by the PCR Court, Srivilliputtur
against the detenu herein and one Mahalingasundaramoorthy, who is the
detenu in H.C.P.(MD) No.1575 of 2023, is illegible and it is in English
language. Therefore, that the detenu herein is deprived of his valuable right to
make an effective representation. Further, this Court by order dated
05.04.2024 in H.C.P.(MD) No.1575 of 2023, has set aside the detention order
passed against the co-detenu, on the ground of non-furnishing of legible and
translated copy of the remand order in the vernacular language to the detenu.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is seen that the respondents have not filed counter affidavit
in this habeas corpus petition. On a perusal of the Booklet filed in the
connected H.C.P.(MD) No.1575 of 2023 filed by the co-detenu, this Court finds
that the legible and translated copy of the remand order passed against the
detenu herein and other detenu (in H.C.P.(MD) No.1575 of 2023) relied on by
the Detaining Authority at Page No.69 of the booklet, in vernacular language,
has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the
non-furnishing of legible and translated copy of the said document would
deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation.
Further, this Court by order dated 05.04.2023 passed in the connected H.C.P.
(MD) No.1575 of 2023, set aside the detention order passed against the co-
detenu. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the present
impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is also vitiated.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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:
''6. The short question that falls for our
consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version
of the order of remand passed in English, a language not
known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
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 an
effective representation. What applies to a document would
equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 and
translated copy of the remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority at
Page No.69 of the booklet of H.C.P.(MD) No.1575 of 2023, in 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 Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no
hesitation in quashing the present impugned detention order also.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.30/2023, dated 28.10.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Krishnaprabu, son of
Pakkiyaraj, aged about 25 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
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Jail,
Madurai.
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
05.04.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
