Madras High Court
Ajithkumar @ Aakku vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 19 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.429 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.429 of 2024
Ajithkumar @ Aakku ...Petitioner/detenu
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... 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 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.429 of 2024
the detention order of the second respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.
03/2024, dated 21.03.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the body or person of the detenu by name, Ajithkumar @
Aakku, S/o.Baluchamy aged about 26 years, now detained as “Drug
Offender” at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the detenu, viz., Ajithkumar @ Aakku,
S/o.Baluchamy aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.03/2024, dated
21.03.2024 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under
Section 2(e) of the 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 has not been furnished with a
translated copy of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining
Authority, more particularly at Page No.105 of the booklet, in the
vernacular language, though the detenu seeking for Tamil version.
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. 105,
which is the Remand Order, furnished to the detenu in English version.
Though the detenu has seeking Tamil Version of remand order and the
same has not been furnished in the vernacular language. This non-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
furnishing of Tamil Version 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
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. This non-furnishing of Tamil Version of
remand order to the detenu, 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 B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.03/2024, dated 21.03.2024
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ajithkumar
@ Aakku, S/o.Baluchamy aged about 26 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
Note: The Registry is directed to call for explanation from the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatty, who so functioned on 01.03.2024.
Registry may direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, to
determine who was actually the Magistrate who was functioning on
01.03.2024 and the name of the actual Officer who had passed the remand
order on 01.03.2024 and ask the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned to
type out his own remand order and indicate how long it took him to read
his own order and an explanation as to why a legible copy was not written
down by him in the first instance.
2. Explanation by the learned Judicial Magistrate to be
forwarded by 03.10.2024. A copy of Page No.105 may be enclosed along
with this order by the Registry and forwarded to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Madurai, for forwarding the same to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate.
3. Registry should call for explanation to be submitted on or
before 03.10.2024.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
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
