Madras High Court
N.Chinnaperumal vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 24 October, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2024
N.Chinnaperumal ...Petitioner/father of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the
proceedings of the second respondent in Detention Order No.27/2024,
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2024
dated 02.04.2024 quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents
to produce the detenu, namely Manojkumar, son of Chinnaperumal, aged
about 28 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai, before
this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chandrabose
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Manojkumar, aged
about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent
by his order in Detention Order No.27/2024, dated 02.04.2024 holding
him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas
Corpus Petition.
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy
of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page No.72 of the booklet and the Remand Order, furnished
to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language
at Page No.73 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was
deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.72 of
the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenu, is
illegible. It is seen that Page No.73 of the Booklet, which is the Remand
Order, furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the
vernacular language. This improper translation of vernacular language
and furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the
order of detention.
____________
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 improper translation of
the Remand Order made by the authority concerned, which is available at
Page No.73, in the vernacular language and non-furnishing of legible
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the Booklet. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular
language and illegible copy of remand 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 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 Detention Order No.27/2024, dated 02.04.2024
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Manojkumar, son of Chinnaperumal, aged about 28 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.]
24.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
____________
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 District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.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.
RM
24.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
