Madras High Court
Ambika vs The Secretary To The Government on 9 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1453 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.1453 of 2024
Ambika ... Petitioner/
mother of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kiliyanur Police Station,
Villupuram District. ... 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 connection with the
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1453 of 2024
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.05.2024 in
Rc.No.C2/19/2024 against the petitioner son Suriya, Male aged 24 years
S/o.Parasuraman, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside
the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Suriya aged
about 24 years now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/19/2024 dated 27.05.2024, branding
him as "Bootlegger" under 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the booklet served on the detenue would
reveal that the documents enclosed in page nos.30 to 33 are illegible.
4.In view of the fact that illegible documents were served, the
detenue has been deprived of submitting effective representation, which is a
mandate under the statute.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/19/2024 is quashed and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Suriya, aged 24 years
now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore 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
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kiliyanur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
6. 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
