Madras High Court
Vicki @ Vigneshwaran vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 10 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.460 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.460 of 2024
Vicki @ Vigneshwaran ...Petitioner/detenu
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with
the detention order of the second respondent in No.12/BCDFGISSSV/
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.460 of 2024
2024, dated 13.03.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu by name Vicki @ Vigneshwaran, son of Sudalaikannu,
aged about 26 years, now detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison, before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the detenu, viz., Vicki @ Vigneshwaran, son
of Sudalaikannu, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in No.12/ BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated
13.03.2024 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
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 the contents of the remand order had not been
properly translated in Tamil version. In the English version of the remand
order dated 05.02.2024, given in Page No.231, the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Tirunelveli, dated 05.02.2024 had stated that the statement of the
accused about his injury has been “recorded”. In the Tamil version given
in Page No.233 the word “recorded” had been omitted to be translated.
Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the
remand order had not been properly translated in Tamil version, though it
was mentioned in English version. This would deprive the detenu of
making effective representation to the authorities against the order of
detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 correctly
translated copy of 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.12/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 13.03.2024
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vicki @
Vigneshwaran, son of Sudalaikannu, aged about 26 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 Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
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
