Madras High Court
Usha vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2335 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.2335 of 2024
Usha ... Petitioner/Mother of the
detenu
Vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet District Office,
Ranipet District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Ranipet Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Ranipet District.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2335 of 2024
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records culminating in
the passing of the order of detention the petitioner's son of the defence under
Act 1982 as GOONDAS vide detention order in No.B3/D.O.No.53/2024
dated 10.07.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the
body and person of the detenu by name Manikandan @ Butta Mani S/o.
Gopi, aged about 19 years before this Court and set him at liberty from the
detention now confined at Central Prison, Vellore.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vijayasankar
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 10.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Page Nos.20 and 37 in Volume-II of the booklet served on the
detenue is found to be illegible. In view of the fact that illegible documents
were served, the detenue has been deprived of submitting effective
representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
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
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
..... 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.”
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 reason, the detention order passed by
the second respondent in proceedings B3/ D.O.No.53/2024 dated
10.07.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenue viz., Manikandan @ Butta Mani, aged 19 years, S/o. Gopi confined
at Central Prison, Vellore 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
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. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet District Office,
Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Ranipet Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Ranipet District.
6. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
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
