Madras High Court
Karthick @ Komban vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 23 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1287 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1287 of 2023
Karthick @ Komban ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1287 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, connected with the detention
order of the second respondent in No.77/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 22.08.2023
and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body order person
of the detenu by name Karthick @ Komban, son of Kombamuthu, aged about 20
years, now detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
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 detenu viz., Karthick @ Komban, son of
Kombamuthu, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in No.77/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 22.08.2023 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 that in Page No.46 of the booklet, the dismissal order of the bail, dated
04.08.2023 has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. Hence, it
is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.46 of the
Booklet, which is the bail order, has not been properly translated in the vernacular
language. This improper translation 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 improper translation of the bail order,
which is available at Page No.46, in the vernacular language. This furnishing
improper translation in the vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his
constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.77/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 22.08.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Karthick @ Komban, aged about
20 years, son of Kombamuthu, 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.]
23.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
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.
am
23.04.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
