Madras High Court
Vasantha vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 2 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2017 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :02.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2017 of 2024
Vasantha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
The Secretary Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate And District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
4. The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector Of Police,
Ramanatham Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2017 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 in
C3/D.O./48/2024 dated 28.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the
Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce detenue namely Raja son of Azhagappan, Hindu aged bout-47, Middle
Street Vaithiyanathapuram, Tittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, now confined in
Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karuppaiyamooppanar
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 C3/D.O./48/2024
dated 28.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the translation
copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenue. The detenue
has no knowledge in reading English and non-translation of the Government Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
caused prejudice to the detenue from submitting effective representation, which is
a valuable right under the Act.
3. 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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 required to be detained in any
other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
4. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in C3/D.O./48/2024 dated 28.05.2024 is quashed and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Raja son of Azhagappan, Hindu
aged bout-47, Middle Street Vaithiyanathapuram, Tittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore
District, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.]
02.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sha
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sha
To
1. State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
The Secretary Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate And District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
4. The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector Of Police,
Ramanatham Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
02.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
