Madras High Court
Muthupandi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 12 August, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.311 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.311 of 2024
Muthupandi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in C.No.
01/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024, dated 05.01.2024, on the file of the second
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.311 of 2024
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the
body of the petitioner's son, namely, Karthick, son of Paramasivam, aged about
24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Karthick, aged about
24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in
C.No.01/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024, dated 05.01.2024 holding him to be a
"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have
also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has raised
objection by stating that the detenu has involved in fourteen previous cases.
4. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the
ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the 'Order of Remand
of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making
effective representation.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.29 of the
Booklet, which is the 'Order of Remand Extension', furnished to the detenu, is
illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would deprive
the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order
of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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.
The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
nonsupply 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.''
7. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible copy of the
document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.29 of the Booklet. This
furnishing of illegible copy to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to
make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in
Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no
hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in C.No.01/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 05.01.2024, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Karthick, aged about 24
years, son of Paramasivam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
12.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
PKN
12.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
