Madras High Court
Nirmalarani vs State Of Tamil Nadu' Reported In on 28 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
H.C.P.No.2500 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2500 of 2024
Nirmalarani
W/o Kulanthairaj .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
of Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
3. The Superintendent of Police
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore
5. The Inspector of Police
Elavanasurkottai Police Station
Kallakurichi District .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2500 of 2024
praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent
dated 18.09.2024 in D.O.No.C2/57/2024 against the petitioner's husband
Kulanthairaj alias Kattumanushan, Male, aged 36 years, S/o Abraham, who
is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct
the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.D.Balaji
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 2nd respondent in proceedings
D.O.No.C2/57/2024 dated 18.09.2024 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
effective representation, which is a valuable right under the Act.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings D.O.No.C2/57/2024 dated 18.09.2024 is
quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Kulanthairaj alias Kattumanushan, aged 36 years, S/o Abraham, 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.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 28.10.2024
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
of Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
3. The Superintendent of Police
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Inspector of Police
Elavanasurkottai Police Station
Kallakurichi District
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
28.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
