Madras High Court
Govinthammal vs State Rep. By on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1262 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1262 of 2024
Govinthammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. By:
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.Gorge,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kannankurichi Police Station,
Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
C.M.P.No.35/Goonda/Salem City/2024 dated 24.04.2024 on the file of the
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1262 of 2024
Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent herein and
quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue
Thiru.Manikandan, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 33 years, now confined at
Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sengkodi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., Manikandan,
aged about 33 years, S/o.Murugesan confined at Central prison, Salem, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent dated 24.04.2024 slapped on her son, branding him
as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders,
Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the similar
order relied upon by the Detaining Authority. 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 similar order relied
upon by the Detaining Authority, which is available in Page No.90 in
Volume-II of the booklet, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy of the
vital document 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 Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in
'(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the
detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 non-supply 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. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 24.04.2024 in C.M.P.No.35/Goonda/Salem
City/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The detenu viz., Manikandan, aged about 33 years, S/o.Murugesan
confined at Central prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
To
1.State rep. By:
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.Gorge,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kannankurichi Police Station,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
