Madras High Court
K.Chellakani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
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.1553 of 2023
K.Chellakani ... 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
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1553 of 2023
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.83/2023, dated 12.08.2023, on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the petitioner's bother, namely, Pandaram @ Baskar, son of
Jeyaraman, aged about 25 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 sister of the detenu viz., Pandaram @ Baskar,
son of Jeyaraman, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83/2023, dated
12.08.2023, 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 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 incomplete translation. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the accident register available at Page No.37 of the Booklet has
not been fully translated in the vernacular language and it is incomplete
translation, which is available in Page No.39. 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 accident register
available at Page No.37 of the book has not been fully translated in the
vernacular language and the translation of the said document is incomplete,
which is available at Page No.39 of the Booklet. This furnishing of incomplete
translation copy 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 the accident register relied on by the
Detaining Authority at Page No.37 of the booklet has not been fully translated
in the vernacular language, which is available in Page No.39 of the booklet.
This furnishing of incomplete translation copy of the document 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 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 M.H.S.Confdl.No.83/2023, dated 12.08.2023, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pandaram @ Baskar, son
of Jeyaraman, 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.]
17.04.2024
(1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
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.
____________
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
17.04.2024
(1/2)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
