Madras High Court
D.Shanmugam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.14 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.14 of 2024
D.Shanmugam .. Petitioner / Father of the Detenu
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented 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, calling for the entire records connected with
the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl No.115/2023 dated 20.09.2023
on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.14 of 2024
the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the
petitioner's son i.e., Chinnadurai, aged about 21 years, S/o.Shanmugam,
now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
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., Chinnadurai, aged
about 21 years, S/o.Shanmugam. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.115/2023 dated
20.09.2023 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-furnishing of legible copy of the remand order available
at Page No.161 of Volume-I and the documents available at Page Nos.13,
15, 89 to 95 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 documents available at
Page Nos.13, 15 and 89 to 95 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the remand report in English available at Page No.161 is illegible.
Therefore, it cannot be understood that the translation 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 Volume-I of the
booklet. Furthermore, the document available at Page Nos.13, 15 and 89 to
95 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''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 document in the
language known to and understood by the detenu,
should the document be in a different language.
...
...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.161 of
Volume-I and at Page Nos.13, 15 and 89 to 95 of Volume-II of the booklet,
has impaired the constitutional right of the detenu 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.115/2023 dated 20.09.2023 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Chinnadurai,
S/o.Shanmugam, aged about 21 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.)
16.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
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.
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.
Lm
16.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
