Madras High Court
G.Suryakalarani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.469 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.469 of 2024
G.Suryakalarani ... Petitioner / Mother of the detenue
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
O/o. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Karur District, Karur.
3.The Superintendent,
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 pertaining to the impugned
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in
Cr.M.P.No.03/2024, dated 08.02.2024 in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f)
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.469 of 2024
of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenue, namely, Vinoth @ Vinothkumar,
S/o.Gopinath, Male, aged about 24 years, who is detained in Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, Vinoth @
Vinothkumar, S/o.Gopinath, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.03/2024, dated 08.02.2024,
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. 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 in the English version of the detention order, it is stated that the
aforesaid individual is found indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order and public health, however, in the Tamil version, the word 'public
health' had not been translated. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was
deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that in the Tamil
version, the word 'public health' had not been translated, though it was mentioned
in English version. This would deprive the detenu of making effective
representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
5. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force
to the case on hand. This furnishing of not properly translated copy to the detenu,
has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against
the impugned preventive detention order. 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention in Cr.M.P.No.03/2024, dated 08.02.2024, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vinoth @ Vinothkumar, S/o.Gopinath
aged about 24 years, 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.]
19.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To:
1.The Principal Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
O/o. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Karur District, Karur.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
Yuva
19.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
