Madras High Court
Jyoti Dora vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1749 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1749 of 2024
Jyoti Dora ... Petitioner/Wife
of the Detenue
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore.
4. Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5. Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Prohibition and Enforcement Wing,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1749 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent made in his order
Cr.M.P.No.35/D.O./2024 dated 01.07.2024 against the petitioner's husband
Mr.Abhijith Dora S/o. Sanatan Dora aged about 27 years who is confined at
Central Prison, Coimbatore under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as DRUG
OFFENDER and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce
the detenue Mr.Abhijith Dora S/o. Sanatan Dora aged about 27 years before
this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thinesh
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 01.07.2024 is under challenge 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The mother tongue of the detenu is Odia. The detention order
passed by the second respondent has not been translated in the language
known to the detenu. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent dated 01.07.2024 in proceedings
Cr.M.P.No.35/D.O/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition
is allowed. The detenu viz., Abhijith Dora, aged 27 years, S/o. Sanatan
Dora confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore 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.]
05.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore.
5. Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
6. Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Prohibition and Enforcement Wing,
Coimbatore 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
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
