Madras High Court
Kottayammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.936 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.936 of 2024
Kottayammal ... Petitioner / Mother of the detenue
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanthapuram District, Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Madurai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order
passed by the second respondent in S.R. No.2/Goonda/2024 dated 22.02.2024
and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.936 of 2024
Vettupuli @ Sakthivel, S/o. Marimuthu aged about 24 years who is detained at
Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Balamuruganantham
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, Vettupuli @
Sakthivel, S/o. Marimuthu aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in S.R. No.2/Goonda/2024 dated 22.02.2024,
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.
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 initial remand order was not available only remand extension order is
available. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be
quashed.
4. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon
perusal of the documents available on record, it is clear that only remand
extension order is available and no initial remand order has not been furnished to
the detenue. The non furnishing of documents 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 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 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 initial Remand Order was not
available and only extended remand order is available . This non furnishing of
initial 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention in S.R. No.2/Goonda/2024 dated 22.02.2024,, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vettupuli @ Sakthivel, S/o. Marimuthu
aged about 24 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.]
03.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanthapuram District, Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Madurai
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
aav
03.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
