Madras High Court
Suganthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2161 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2161 of 2024
Suganthi ... Petitioner/Wife of the
detenue
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner,
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4. The Inspector of Police,
C1-Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2161 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 Memo No.795/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 30.07.2024
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
husband Gowtham @ Chinna Gandu s/o Seenivasan the detenu now
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the
petitioner's husband Gowtham @ Chinna Gandu S/o. Seenivasan, aged
about 24 years the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Naresh
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
30.07.2024 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Accident Register enclosed at page no.17 in Volume-I of the
booklet served on the detenu has not been translated in the language known
to the detenu. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is required to be detained in any other case. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
5. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
6. For the aforesaid reasons,, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings No.795/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
30.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The detenu viz., Gowtham @ Chinna Gandu S/o. Seenivasan, aged 24 years,
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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.]
19.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by 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. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner,
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai - 7.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
5. The Inspector of Police,
C1-Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.MALA., J.
veda
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
