Madras High Court
Farjana Parveen vs The Secretary To Government on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1026 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.1026 of 2024
Farjana Parveen ... Petitioner/wife of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Vridhachalam Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1026 of 2024
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in C3/D.O/32/2024, dated 24.04.2024 in detain the detenue under
2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Drug Offender and quash the
same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Mansoor Ali, son of
Jabar Ali, aged about 38 years, who is detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Silambarasan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Mansoor
Ali, son of Jabar Ali, aged about 38 years, detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2024 slapped on her
husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the entries in English in the prayer for
remand has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the
detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole
ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page No.70 of the booklet, this Court finds that a copy of the prayer for
remand is available, in which the entries in English has not been translated
in vernacular version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making
effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 C3/D.O/32/2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mansoor
Ali, son of Jabar Ali, aged about 38 years, detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, 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
Anu
Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet
containing the materials, on which, the
Detaining Authority has placed reliance,
to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner
with due acknowledgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Vridhachalam Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
