Madras High Court
Suresh @ Kakka Suresh vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 19 August, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.301 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.301 of 2024
Suresh @ Kakka Suresh ... Petitioner/detenu
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... 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 connected with
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.301 of 2024
the detention order of the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.
No.24/2024, dated 06.02.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name, Suresh
@ Kakka Suresh, son of Ganesan, aged about 22 years now detained as
“Drug Offender” at Palayamkottai Central Prison, before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the detenu namely, Suresh @ Kakka Suresh,
son of Ganesan, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.24/2024, dated
06.02.2024 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under
Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under
challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 remand order
given in Page No.71, it is stated that the Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Tirunelveli, by remand order, dated 08.01.2024 had remanded the
accused/petitioner for 5 days till 12.01.2024, however, in the Tamil
version given in Page No.75, the number of days of remand had not been
mentioned and the Court which remanded the petitioner had also not been
given. 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 number of days of remand had not been mentioned and
the Court which remanded the petitioner had also not been given, though
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.''
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.24/2024, dated 06.02.2024 passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suresh @ Kakka
Suresh, son of Ganesan, aged about 22 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
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
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.
RM
19.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
