Madras High Court
A.Renuka vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 13 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1809 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1809 of 2024
A.Renuka ... Petitioner/Grand mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goodas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O),
F-1, Chindatripet Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in
No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024 and set aside the same and
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1809 of 2024
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue M.Karthick ,
S/o.Moorthy aged about 21 years, petitioner's grandson now confined at
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhanam
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The ground raised by the petitioner is that though documents have
been served on the detenue, the medical report of the Madras Medical
College, Chennai was improperly translated. The medical report provided
contrary dates in english and tamil version. It is not known which date is
the correct one. Such improper translation resulted in causing prejudice to
the detenue to submit effective representation, which is a mandate under
the statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. 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 a document would amount to
denial of the right of being communicated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
4. 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
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in Proceedings No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
06.06.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The detenu viz., M.Karthick , S/o.Moorthy aged about 21 years, now
confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066, 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.]
13.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goodas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O),
F-1, Chindatripet Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.s
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
