Madras High Court
Manimegalai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 13 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2769 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2769 of 2024
Manimegalai ... Petitioner/Mother of the
detenue
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2769 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 in Cr.M.P.No.24/2024 dated 31.07.2024 on the file of
the Respondent No.2 and Quash the same as illegal and direct the
Respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's Son namely
Aakash, aged about 23 years, Son of Kannan now confined at Central
Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Kathiravan
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
effective representation, which is a valuable right conferred under the
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.24/2024 dated 31.07.2024
is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Aakash, aged 23/2024, S/o. Kannan confined at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set liberty forthwith, unless his confinement
is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
13.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
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 Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
6. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
