Madras High Court
Vinoth @ Kida Vinoth vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1353 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1353 of 2024
Vinoth @ Kida Vinoth ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, 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 petitioners
detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated
21.03.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in
proceedings No.230/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1353 of 2024
namely Vinoth (a) Kida Vinoth, aged 22 years, son of Vinayagam, before
this High Court and set him at Liberty, now petitioner detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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.230/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.03.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
translation copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the
detenue. The detenue has no knowledge in reading English and non
translation of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenue from
submitting effective representation, which is a valuable right under the Act.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Memo No.230/BCDFGISSSV/2024
dated 21.03.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The detenue viz., Vinoth (a) Kida Vinoth, aged 22 years, son of
Vinayagam, who is confined at 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.]
16.08.2024
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
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
