Madras High Court
Sangeetha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2378 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.2378 of 2024
Sangeetha ... Petitioner/Wife of the
detenu
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department ( Home),
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District,
Tiruvarur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District,
Tiruvarur.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichy.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2378 of 2024
5. The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kottur Police Station,
Tiruvarur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, direction to produce the body of the detenu
namely (Thiru.Mohanasundaram aged about 40 years son of Krishnan)
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, by calling for the records
pertaining to the detention order C.O.C.No.13/2024 dated 29.06.2024 passed
by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramaraj
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 29.06.2024 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.
3. The Government Order in G.O.(D).No.124, Home, Prohibition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 enclosed at page nos.53 &
54 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
detention and a document which finds a mere reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 C.O.C.No.13/2024 dated 29.06.2024
is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Mohanasundaram, aged 40/2024, S/o. Krishnan 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 Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department ( Home),
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District,
Tiruvarur.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District,
Tiruvarur.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichy.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Kottur Police Station,
Tiruvarur 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
