Madras High Court
Saranya vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2377 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2377 of 2024
Saranya ... Petitioner/Wife of the
detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Keelapalur Police Station,
Ariyalur District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2377 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in Cr.M.P.No.26/2024 dated 02.08.2024 in detain the detenu under
2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a GOONDA and quash the same and
direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Loganathan, son of
Balakrishnan aged about 45 years, who is detained at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 02.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Government Order in G.O.(D).No.187, Home, Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department dated 12.07.2024 enclosed at page nos.74 &
75 in volume-II of the Booklet served on the detenue has not been translated
in the language known to the detenue. Thus, the detenu is deprived from
making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated.
4. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she
is required to be detained in any other case. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
5. 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.
6. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent in proceedings Cr.M.P.No.26/2024 dated 02.08.2024
is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Loganathan, aged 45/2024, S/o. Balakrishnan confined at Central
Prison, Tiruchirappalli 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.]
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Keelapalur Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
