Madras High Court
Mrs.Maari vs The Secretary To Government on 18 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2779 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2779 of 2024
Mrs.Maari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Arni Town Police Station
Arni, Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order dated 23.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2779 of 2024
in Order D.O.No.56/2024-C2 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same
and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner's son “Dhanush @ Veera”
Male aged about 21 years son of Ayyanar No.11, Kannagi Nagar, Santhaimedu,
Kilpennathur Village and Taluk, Tiruvannamalai, presently confined at the Central
Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gunasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater
Chennai in Order D.O.No.56/2024-C2 dated 23.08.2024 is sought to be quashed
in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.Admittedly, the known language to the detenue in the present case is
'Tamil'. The remand order and the remand extension order enclosed along with the
booklet has not been translated in the language known to the accused which
caused prejudice to the detenue to submit his representation in an effective manner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which is a valuable right conferred under Act 14/1982.
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'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution,
observed that the detenue 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 detenue, 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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in Order D.O.No.56/2024-C2 dated 23.08.2024 is quashed and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., “Dhanush @ Veera” son of
Ayyanar aged about 21 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other
case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
18.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tsh
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Inspector of Police,
Arni Town Police Station
Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
tsh
18.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
