Madras High Court
Pappanachiyar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1243 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.1243 of 2024
Pappanachiyar .. Petitioner/
Mother of detenu
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Veperi, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Puzhal Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
J-13 Police Station,
Tharamani, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
H.C.P.No.1243 of 2024
records relating to the detention order memo No.BCDFGISSSV
No.432/2024 dated 30.04.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondent to
produce the detenue Uthirakumar @ Sethupathi Pandiyan, son of Irulandi
Devar, male, aged 35 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before
this Court and set the detenu Uthirakumar @ Sethupathi Pandiyan, son of
Irulandi Devar, male, aged 35 years at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellidoss
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely
Uthirakumar @ Sethupathi Pandiyan, S/o.Irulandi Devar, aged 35 years,
detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 30.04.2024 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Offenders, 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 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, especially page
Nos.33 and 34 of the booklet, it is clear 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. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 30.04.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.432/2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Uthirakumar @ Sethupathi Pandiyan, S/o.Irulandi Devar, aged 35 years,
now 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
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
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.
To
1. The Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Veperi, Chennai - 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Puzhal Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
J-13 Police Station,
Tharamani, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
grs
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
