Madras High Court
B. Venkatammal vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1963 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1963 of 2024
B. Venkatammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate District Collector,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, II,
Puzhal, Chennail
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Periyapalayam PEW,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1963 of 2024
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is 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 herein made
in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.23 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 on the file of the
second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu viz., Babu, aged 60 years, Son of
Balaraman, residing at Bajanai Koil Street, Monnavedupettai Village,
Tiruvallur District now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
produced before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gnana Banu
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
16.07.2024 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Page
No.31 of Volume I of the Booklet served on the detenu has not been
translated in the language known to the detenue and thus the detenu is
deprived from making effective representation.
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 in the grounds of detention. Whereas the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. Further, the relied on case in the impugned order of detention
was registered in Crime No.302/2019. The second relied on case was
registered in the year 2023. As far as the first relied on case is concerned, the
same has no proximity with the ground case, since four years lapsed. Thus,
we are inclined to consider the habeas corpus petition.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.23 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Babu, Son of Balaraman, aged 60 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
06.09.2024
asi
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate District Collector,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, II,
Puzhal, Chennail
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Periyapalayam PEW,
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
asi
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
