Madras High Court
K.Priya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1398 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1398 of 2024
K.Priya
... Petitioner/Wife of Detenue
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government [Home],
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City,
Chennai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Immoral Traffic Prevention Unit-1,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1398 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent, in his
proceedings S.C.No.429/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 29.04.2024 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to produce petitioner's husband
(Kumar aged 42 years son of Subramani) before this Court now confined in
Central Prison, Puzhal set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Vinothkumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent is under
challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Authority is vitiated as the copy of the grounds of detention has not been properly
translated in English. It is therefore stated that the detenue is deprived of his
valuable right to make effective representation.
4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the
copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a
subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make
effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 29.04.2024 in proceedings No.429/BCDFGISSSV/2024 is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kumar,
S/o.Subramani , aged about 42 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
09.08.2024
veda
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government [Home],
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City,
Chennai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Immoral Traffic Prevention Unit-1,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
