Madras High Court
I. Mary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024
I. Mary ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tiruchirapalli District
Tiruchirapalli
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Inspector of Police
Palakarai Police Station,
Tiruchirapalli City ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in
C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024 in detaining the detenue
under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Soosairaj,
S/o. Innasi, Male aged about 34 years who is detained in Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, Soosairaj,
S/o. Innasi, aged about 34 years . The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024,
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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other
grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on
the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not
furnished the detenue with the legible copies of the remand extension order more
specifically at page No.61. This deprived the detenu from making effective
representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be
quashed.
4. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon
perusal of the documents available on record of the booklet, it is clear that the
detenue was furnished with the illegible copies of the remand extension order
Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
____________
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:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that the legible copies of the remand
extension order was not furnished to the detenue. This non furnishing of legible
copies of remand extension order 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Soosairaj, S/o. Innasi, aged
about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required
in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] & [R.P., J.]
17.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tiruchirapalli District
Tiruchirapalli
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Inspector of Police
Palakarai Police Station,
Tiruchirapalli City
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
aav
17.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
