Madras High Court
Chinnadurai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 23 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1407 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.1407 of 2023
Chinnadurai ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... 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 connected with the detention
order of the second respondent in H.S(M) Confdl.No.128/2023, dated 26.09.2023
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1407 of 2023
and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of
the detenu by name Mookkandi @ Raja, son of Chinnadurai aged about 30 years,
now confining as "Drug Offender" at Palayamkottai 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 father of the detenu viz., Mookkandi @ Raja,
son of Chinnadurai, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in H.S(M) Confdl.No.128/2023, dated 26.09.2023
holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 that the remand order, which is available at Page No.329 of the booklet
has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Hence, it is submitted
that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents would submit that some of the co-accused, who are also arrested in
the same crime number, have filed the H.C.P(MD)Nos.1243, 1245 and 1248 of
2023 and the same were dismissed by this Court.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
those applications the specific point for non-furnishing of legible copy was not
raised.
6. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.329 of the
Booklet, which is the remand order, furnished to the detenu, has not been
properly translated. This furnishing of improper translation of the vital document
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities
against the order of detention.
7. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
...
...
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.''
8. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that the improper translation of the remand
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order, which is available at Page No.329, in the vernacular language. This
furnishing of improper translation 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.
9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in H.S(MD)Confdl.No.128/2023, dated 26.09.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mookkandi @ Raja, aged about
30 years, son of Chinnadurai, 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
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
