Madras High Court
Jayalakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1369 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.1369 of 2024
Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Team Alpha-3, Bank Fraud Investigation Wing,
Central Crime Branch -I,
Chennai – 600 007. ... 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
detention order in memo no.508/BCDGISSSV/2024, dated 14.05.2024
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1369 of 2024
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's
son Sathishkumar s/o. Deivasigamani aged about 47 years the detenue,
now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan Raj
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.508/BCDGISSSV/2024, dated 14.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The documents supplied to the detenue are improperly paginated
and even the index is not tallied with the documents furnished to the
detenue. There is a total carelessness in preparing the typed set of papers
by the Detaining Authority, which caused prejudice to the interest of the
detenue to submit effect representation. The manner in which the typed set
of papers served on the detenue cannot be appreciated in view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
confusion in the index as well as in pagination. Thus, the detenue has been
prevented from submitting effective representation, which is a valuable
right.
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
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 {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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings No.508/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
14.05.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenue viz., Sathishkumar s/o. Deivasigamani aged about 47 years the
detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.]
14.08.2024
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 State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Team Alpha-3, Bank Fraud Investigation Wing,
Central Crime Branch -I,
Chennai – 600 007.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
14.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
