Madras High Court
M.Annamalai vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.634 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.634 of 2024
M.Annamalai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothkudi District,
Thoothukudi.
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 entire records connected with
the detention order passed in H.S(M) Confdl. No.18/2024, dated
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.634 of 2024
16.03.2024, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the
detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e.,Vishnu, aged about 24 years,
S/o. Muthukrishnan now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the son of the detenu viz., Vishnu, son of
Muthukrishnan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in H.S(M) Confdl. No.18/2024, dated
16.03.2024 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 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 was not furnished with the remand
extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at
Page No.103 of the booklet and the Remand Order, has not been
translated in the vernacular language. 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 No.103 of
the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', was not furnished to the
detenu, in translated copy. It is seen that the detenu, has not been given
with the remand order translated in the vernacular language. This non
furnishing of remand order in vernacular language and furnishing of
illegible copy of the vital document 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
merely finds a reference in the order of detention or
among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 as we find that the non furnishing of the
Remand Order made by the authority concerned, in the vernacular
language relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.103 of the
Booklet. This non furnishing of remand extension order in vernacular
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
language 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.18/2024, dated 16.03.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vishnu, son
of Muthukrishnan, aged about 24 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.]
19.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothkudi District,
Thoothukudi.
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.
aav
19.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
