Madras High Court
Subbulakshmi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 10 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.446 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.446 of 2024
Subbulakshmi ...Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tuticorin
Tuticorin District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.446 of 2024
proceedings in Detention Order H.S(M) Confdl.No.13/2024, dated
07.03.2024 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda” and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu namely, Manthiram @ Chinnadurai,
son of Manickam Konar, Male, aged about 40 years, who is detained in
Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is wife of the detenu, viz., Manthiram @
Chinnadurai, son of Manickam Konar, aged about 40 years. The detenu
has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S(M)
Confdl.No.13/2024, dated 07.03.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 has not been furnished with a
translated copy of the 'Remand Extension Order' relied on by the
Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.135 and 139 of the
booklet, in the vernacular language, though the detenu seeking for Tamil
version by giving representation, dated 27.03.2024. 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 Nos. 135
and 139 of the Booklet, which is the Remand Extension Order, furnished
to the detenu in English version. Though the detenu has given a
representation dated 27.03.2024 seeking Tamil Version of remand
extension order and the same has not been furnished in the vernacular
language. This non-furnishing of Tamil Version of the vital document
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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. This non-furnishing of Tamil Version of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
remand extension 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 H.S(M) Confdl.No.13/2024, dated 07.03.2024
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manthiram
@ Chinnadurai, son of Manickam Konar, aged about 40 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.]
10.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tuticorin
Tuticorin District.
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
10.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
