Madras High Court
Arivalzhagan vs State Of Tamil Nadu' Reported In on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2642 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2642 of 2024
Arivalzhagan
S/o Samikannu .. Petitioner
v.
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli
5. The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Ariyalur .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2642 of 2024
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to
the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.25/2024
dated 31.07.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenu Vinayagan, aged 24
years, son of Arivalzhagan, is now confined in Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce
the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Rajkumar
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The order of detention passed by the second respondent in
proceedings Cr.M.P.No.25/2024 dated 31.07.2024 is sought to be quashed
in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
translation copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the
detenu. The detenu has no knowledge in reading English and non translation
of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenu from submitting an
effective representation, which is a valuable right conferred under the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provisions of Act 14 of 1982.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in '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, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.”
4. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is liable to be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Cr.M.P.No.25/2024 dated 31.07.2024 is
quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Vinayagan, aged 24 years, S/o Arivalzhagan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 05.11.2024
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli
5. The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Ariyalur
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
05.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
