Madras High Court
Suganthi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2070 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.2070 of 2024
Suganthi ... Petitioner/Sister of
the Detenue
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2070 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order in Rc.No.C2/30/2024, dated 15.07.2024 passed by the 2nd
respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and
direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother Suriya S/o. Kumar
aged about 23 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Santhosh
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
15.07.2024 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.
3. The arrest intimation form enclosed at page no.33 in volume -II
of the booklet served on the detenu has not been translated in the language
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
5. Further, the similar case referred would reveal that the bail was
granted, since there was no previous case. However, in the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner, previous case has been referred. Thus, it is dissimilar which
resulted in non-application of mind.
6. For the aforesaid reasons,, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/30/2024 dated 15.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Suriya, aged 23 years, s/o. Kumar confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
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,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
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
