Madras High Court
C.Sundari vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 19 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.583 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.583 of 2024
C.Sundari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
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
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.583 of 2024
the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl. No.51/2024, dated 17.03.2024 on
the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenue or body of the detenue namely the
petitioner's husband ie., Chinnadurai aged about 41 years S/o. Manickam
now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishnuvarthan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Chinnadurai, S/o.
Manickam aged about 41 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl. No.51/2024, dated
17.03.2024 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 furnished with wrong
translation relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page
No.81 of the booklet. 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.81 of
the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenue it is
found that it has not been properly translated in the vernacular language.
This furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the vital
document would deprive the detenue of making effective representation to
the authorities against the order of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
in all force to the case on hand as we find that wrong translated copy of
the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.81 of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Booklet. This furnishing of wrong translated copy 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 M.H.S.Confdl. No.51/2024, dated 17.03.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Chinnadurai, S/o. Manickam aged about 41 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. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
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
