Madras High Court
Rajeswari vs The Secretary To Government on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.431 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.431 of 2024
Rajeswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Shevapet Police Station,
Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in
C.M.P.No.119/Drug Offender/Salem City/2023 dated 22.12.2023 on the
file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.431 of 2024
herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce
the detenu namely Logeswaran, aged about 33 years, S/o.Subramani,
confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Logeswaran,
aged about 33 years, S/o.Subramani, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
22.12.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender"
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the detention
order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished
with illegible copy of the remand order. Hence, it is submitted that the
detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that some portions in the
remand order are not properly translated and the said document is illegible.
This furnishing of illegible copy 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 Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of '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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observed that the detenu 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
detenu, 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
..... 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.”
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 22.12.2023 in C.M.P.No.119/Drug Offender/Salem City/2023, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Logeswaran, aged about 33 years, S/o.Subramani, is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any
other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
05.06.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Shevapet Police Station,
Salem.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
