Madras High Court
V.Balakrishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024
V.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024
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 the detention
order passed in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 09.11.2023 on the file of the
second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Ramar,
aged about 22 years, S/o.Balakrishnan, now detained at the Central Prison,
Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Ramar, son of
Balakrishnan, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 09.11.2023 holding
him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 copy of the Accident Register, which is available at Page No.239 of
the bookelt, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. Hence, it
is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.239 of the
Booklet, which is the Accident Register, has not been properly translated in the
vernacular language. This improper translation of the vital document 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that improper translation of the Accident
Register made by the authority concerned, which is available at Page No.239, in
the vernacular language. This furnishing improper translation in the vernacular
language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 09.11.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ramar, aged about 22 years, son
of Balakrishnan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
03.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
am
03.06.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
