Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs The Secretary To The Government on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.1901 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.1901 of 2024
Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
detenue
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
5. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Oragadam Police Station,
Kancheepuram. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1901 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the
order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 20.06.2024 in
R.C.No. 124/2024/M6-D.O.No. 27/2024 against the petitioner son Raghul,
M/20 Years, Son of Panneerselvam, who is confined at Central Prison,
Vellore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to
produce the detenue before this Court and set at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
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
20.06.2024 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.
3. The Government Order in G.O.(D)No.99, Home Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 enclosed at page nos.119 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
121 in volume -II of the booklet served on the detenu has not been translated
in the language known to the detenue. Thus, the detenu has been deprived of
submitting his representation in an effective manner.
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 non-supply of
a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of
detention has been held to be fatal to continued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 is
required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is
accordingly allowed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. For the aforesaid reasons,, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.124/2024/M6-D.O.No.27/2024
dated 20.06.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed. The detenu viz., Raghul, aged 20 years, s/o. Panneerselvam
confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.M., J.]
18.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Oragadam Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.MALA., J.
veda
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
