Madras High Court
Thameem Khan vs The Secretary To The Government on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1457 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1457 of 2024
Thameem Khan ... Petitioner/Father of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
D-3, Ice house Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected
with the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.410/2024 dated 26.04.2024
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1457 of 2024
on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner son one named
Mr.Firozkhan S/o.Thameemkhan aged about 23 years now confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely
Firozkhan, S/o.Thameemkhan, aged 23 years, detained at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.04.2024
slapped on his 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 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.82,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 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 Nos.175 and 177 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in
G.O.(D).No.82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated
15.04.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the
same has not been furnished to the detenue. 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
denial of the right of being communicated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 26.04.2024 in No.410/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Firozkhan, S/o.Thameemkhan, aged 23 years, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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]
02.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
D-3, Ice house Police Station,
Chennai District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
