Madras High Court

Muthuraj vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 11 September, 2024

Author: C.V. Karthikeyan

Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

                                                                               H.C.P.(MD) No.379 of 2024


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 11.09.2024

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
                                                        AND
                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                             H.C.P.(MD) No.379 of 2024

                 Muthuraj                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                        -Vs-

                 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
                   Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                   Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

                  2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
                    Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector
                    Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

                  3.The Superintendent,
                    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 entire records connected with the detention
                 order of the second respondent in H.S(M)Confdl. No.10/2024 dated 29.02.2024

                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    H.C.P.(MD) No.379 of 2024


                 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of
                 the detenue by name Murugan @ Maruthu, S/o. Muthuraj, aged about 22 years,
                 now detained as GOONDA at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Hon'ble
                 Court and set him at liberty forthwith

                                       For Petitioner         : Mr.R.Alagumani

                                       For Respondents        : Mr.S.Ravi
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                           ORDER

The petitioner, father of the detenue namely, Murugan @ Maruthu,

aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by

his order in H.S(M)Confdl. No.10/2024 dated 29.02.2024, 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other

grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on

the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not

furnished with the translated copies of the remand extension order relied on by

him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore,

on these 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 especially Page Nos.137 and 139 of

the booklet, it is clear that the translated copy of remand extension order has not

been furnished to the detenue. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be

set aside on this ground.

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 translated copy of remand extension

was not furnished to the detenue. 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 H.S(M)Confdl. No.10/2024 dated 29.02.2024, passed by the second

respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan @ Maruthu, S/o. Muthuraj,

aged about 22 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.]
                                                                          11.09.2024
                 NCC      : Yes / No
                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No
                 aav

Note: We are constrained to allow HCP(MD) No. 379 of 2024 only because

though in the representation request was sought for translated version of the

remand order and the remand extension order, the tamil translation was not

furnished to the detenu. This non furnishing of translated copy could be avoided.

In order to facilitate and put in place Standard Operating Procedure(SoP), we

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

would request the Registry to place this order before the Hon'ble the Acting

Chief Justice with a request to call for a meeting with the Deputy Secretary to

Government, Home Department and the Inspector General of Police, South zone,

Madurai. We have also placed a similar request for meeting to be conducted in the

order in W.P(MD) No.21545 of 2024 to be held at Madurai Bench of Madras