Madras High Court
Kalyanram vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.939 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.939 of 2024
Kalyanram
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2. District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Walajapet. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.939 of 2024
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 order of
detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2024 in
B3/D.O.No.28/2024 against the detenue Kalyanram, Male aged 26 years,
S/o.Bhanwaral, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
Authority is vitiated as there is a variation in the English Version and Tamil
Version of the ground of detention. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
..... 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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second
respondent on 27.03.2024 in proceedings No. B3/D.O.No.28/2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Kalyanram,
S/o.Bhanwarlal , aged about 26 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2. District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Walajapet.
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
