Madras High Court
Revathi.S vs Secretary To Government on 23 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.655 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.655 of 2024
Revathi.S ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Hasthampatti Police Station,
Salem District. ... 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 leading to the
detention of the petitioners husband namely Siddesh @ Siddeshwaran
male aged about 40 years is presently lodged in Central Prison at Salem
and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a Goonda vide detention order
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.655 of 2024
dated 04.03.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in
C.M.P.No.9/Goonda/ Salem City/ 2024 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person
of the said detenue before this Court and thereafter set him at Liberty from
the Central Prison Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
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
C.M.P.No.9/Goonda/Salem City/2024 dated 04.03.2024 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 detenue had been arrested on 06.02.2024 and the impugned
detention order was passed on 04.03.2024. The remand extention order has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not been translated and furnished to the detenue in the language known to
him. That apart, the detenue has been kept under detention from
06.02.2024 onwards for the past about eight months. Considering the fact
that he is already detained under Prevenetive Detention Law for about ten
months, no further detention may be required, since, the adverse cases and
the ground case relied for issuing the detention order can be dealt with
under the law of Act.
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'1. 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:
11999 2 SCC 413
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in C.M.P.No.9/Goonda/Salem City/2024 dated 04.03.2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siddesh
@ Siddeshwaran, Male aged about 40 years S/o.Boopathy, who is
confined at Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
23.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ep
To
1.Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Hasthampatti Police Station,
Salem District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ep
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
