Madras High Court
Marisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.336 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.336 of 2024
Marisamy
(Now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai) ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
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.336 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 H.S(M) Confdl.No.154/2023, dated 15.11.2023 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 Marisamy, aged about 28 years,
S/o.Ayiraraman @ Nari Gounder, 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 detenu viz., Marisamy, son of Ayiraraman @
Nari Gounder, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in H.S(M)Confdl.No.154/2023, dated 15.11.2023 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.
____________
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 grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated copy of
the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No189
of the Booklet, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. It is,
therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an
effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated
copy of the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page
No.189 of the Booklet, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the
detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the said
document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective
representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned
detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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:
''6. The short question that falls for our
consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version
of the order of remand passed in English, a language not
known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 as we find that non-furnishing of translated copy of the
remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.189 of
the Booklet, in 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 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 H.S(M)Confdl.No.154/2023, dated 15.11.2023, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Marisamy, aged about 28 years,
son of Ayiraraman @ Nari Gounder, 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.]
NCC : Yes / No 03.06.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
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
