Madras High Court
Valli vs The Secretary To The Government on 14 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1213 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1213 of 2024
Valli ... 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 Tiruppur,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3 The Superintendent Of Police
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4 The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5 State Rep. By
The Inspector Of Police,
Kinathukadavu Police Station,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1213 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 2nd Respondent dated 11.05.2024 in
Cr.M.P.No.23/G/2024 against the petitioner's brother ESAKKI
MARISELVAM M/21 Years Son of Madasamy, who is confined at Central
Prison Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the
Respondents to produce the detenue before the Honble Court and set him
at Liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
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 son of the detenu viz., Esakki
Mariselvam, M/21 Years Son of Madasamy, who is confined at Central
Prison Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.23/G/2024
dated 11.05.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to
quash the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent are,
(i) There is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
The detenu was arrested on 25.03.2024 and thereafter, the detention order
came to be passed only on 11.05.2024.
(ii) Though Government Order was served to the petitioner,
pg.Nos.114 and 115 were not translated.
4.Admittedly, the known language to the detenue in the present case
is 'Tamil'. The Government order conferring the power of the detaining
authority to issue detention order was issued without translating the same
in Tamil language. In other words, the Government Order furnished to the
detenue is in unknown language to the detenue, which would vitiate the
entire proceedings.
5.The non supply of translated version of the Government Order in
Tamil caused prejudice to the detenue for submitting effective
representation, which is a valuable right provided to the detenue under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act.
6. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay
from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise,
between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the
grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the
detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted
hereunder:-
“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the
above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is
that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the
order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the
same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the
order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained
throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in
passing the detention order and consequently render the
detention order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A
question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case.”
7. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar
Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi
Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023
SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay
from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live
and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby,
had quashed the detention order on this ground.
8.Further, for the second ground raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, 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 detenue
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 detenue, is imperative. In the
said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
{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.”
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in Cr.M.P.No.23/G/2024 dated 11.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Esakki Mariselvam,
M/21 Years Son of Madasamy, who is confined at Central Prison
Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
14.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1 The Secretary To The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2 District Collector And District
Magistrate Of Tiruppur,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3 The Superintendent Of Police
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4 The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5 State Rep. By
The Inspector Of Police,
Kinathukadavu Police Station,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
6 The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
