Madras High Court
Santhi vs The Secretary To The Government on 18 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2456 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2456 of 2024
Santhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore-4.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station,
Cuddalore district. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.2456 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the order of
Detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2024 in
C3/D.O.No.59/2024 against the petitioner Younger Sister Son Pallu Prasath @
Prasath, Male aged 21 years S/o.Sakthivel, who is confined at Central prison,
Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raman
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 proceedings C3/D.O.No.59/2024, dated 27.06.2024 is sought to be
quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The detention order and the Accident Registered served on the detenue
have not been translated. Though the Accident register is not translated, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it would not cause any prejudice to
the detenue for submitting effective representation. Admittedly, the known
language to the detenue in the present case is 'Tamil'.
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'1. 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-
supply of such a document would amount to denial of the
right of being communicated the grounds and of being
11999 2 SCC 413
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
be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings C3/D.O.No.59/2024 dated 27.06.2024 is quashed and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Pallu Prasath @ Prasath,
Male aged 21 years S/o.Sakthivel who is confined at Central prison, Cuddalore , is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any
other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
18.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gd
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government,
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore - 4.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
18.10.2024
