Madras High Court
K.Chellammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.331 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.331 of 2024
K.Chellammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.331 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with
the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl. No.12/2024, dated
19.01.2024, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely
the petitioner's son, i.e., Petchimuthu, son of Karuppasamy, aged about 25
years, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Petchimuthu,
son of Karuppasamy, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl. No.12/2024,
dated 19.01.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under
Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under
challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy
of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page No.155 of the booklet and the Remand Order,
furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the vernacular
language at Page No.157 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the
detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.155 of
the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenu, is
illegible. It is seen that Page No.157 of the Booklet, which is the
Remand Order, furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the vernacular language. This improper translation of vernacular
language and furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would
deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities
against the order of detention.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of
making a 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. The relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
nonsupply 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
in all force to the case on hand as we find that the improper translation of
the Remand Order made by the authority concerned, which is available at
Page No.157, in the vernacular language and non-furnishing of legible
of the Booklet. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular
language and illegible copy of remand order to the detenu, has impaired
his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the
impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right
is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the
impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl. No.12/2024, dated 19.01.2024,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Petchimuthu, son of Karuppasamy, aged about 25 years, is directed to be
released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any
other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
02.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
RM
(1/2)
02.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
