Madras High Court
Anushya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.25 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.25 of 2024
Anushya ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tiruchirappalli City
Trichy
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Trichy ... 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 C.No.
99/Detention/C.P./T.C/2023, dated 02.11.2023, on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.25 of 2024
the body of the petitioner's son, namely, Ashok, son of Ramasamy, aged about
36 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sekar
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., Ashok, son of
Ramasamy, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in C.No.99/Detention/C.P./T.C/2023, dated
02.11.2023, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under
Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1992. 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 grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated copy
of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to 17 of
the Booklet, in vernacular language, have not been furnished to the detenu. It
is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make
an effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to
17 of the Booklet, in vernacular language, have not been furnished to the
detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the said
documents would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective
representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the
impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 translated copy of
the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to 17 of
the Booklet, 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 impugned detention
order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in C.No.99/Detention/C.P./T.C/2023, dated 02.11.2023,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ashok, son of
Ramasamy, aged about 36 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.]
17.04.2024
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City, Trichy.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Trichy.
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
17.04.2024
(2/2)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
