Madras High Court
K.Arumugathai 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.487 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.487 of 2024
K.Arumugathai ... 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 Police
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District 628 601
4. The Inspector of Police
Srivaikundam Police Station
Thoothukudi District
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.487 of 2024
5.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.20/2024, dated
21.03.2024 and quash the same and set petitioner's brother by name
Sankarganesh, S/o.Sivasubramanian aged about 45 years and set him at
liberty from Central Prison, Palayamkottai/fifth respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Aayiram K Selvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the sister of the detenu viz., Sankarganesh,
S/o.Sivasubramanian aged about 45 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in H.S (M).Confdl. No.20/2024,
dated 21.03.2024 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 tamil
version of the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining
Authority, more particularly at Page No.125 of the booklet and in page no.
123 and there is strike off with whitener which is a illegible copy. 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.125 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
furnishing of remand order in vernacular language and furnishing of
illegible copy of the remand warrant 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
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
____________
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
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.''
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 and furnishing of illlegible copy of the document relied on by
the Detaining Authority at Page No.123 of the Booklet. This non
furnishing of remand extension order to the detenu and non furnishing of
remand order in vernacular 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.20/2024, dated 21.03.2024,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Sankarganesh, S/o.Sivasubramanian aged about 45 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
Note: Registry may call for explanation from the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam as to why Sl.No.3 in the form of remand
warrant had been struck off with whitener and to explain why he has
written 'no seal' in the remand warrant in page no. 123 of the booklet. The
explanation may forwarded through the learned Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi. The report shall reach the Court on or before 04.10.2024.
(Registry may also enclose a copy of page No.123 of the book let to the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam so as to give reply)
____________
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 Police
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District 628 601
4. The Inspector of Police
Srivaikundam Police Station
Thoothukudi District
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
6.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
