Madras High Court
Radha vs The Secretary To Government on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2043 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.2043 of 2024
Radha ... Petitioner/wife of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – Salem,
Salem District.
5.State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Pennagaram Police Station,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.2043 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records relating to the petitioners
husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated
23.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings
Memo S.C.No.20/2024/C1, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondents herein to produce the petitioners husband namely Murugesan,
S/o.(Late).Raman, aged 45 years before this High Court and set the petitioner's
husband at Liberty from detention now the petitioner's husband detention now
the petitioners husband detained at Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
Memo S.C.No.20/2024/C1, dated 23.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the
present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The Lower Court order relied by the Detaining Authority in the typed
set, Page No.89 and 90 in Volume II is illegible. In view of the fact that illegible
document is served, the detenue has been deprived of submitting effective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
3. 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 detenue 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 detenue, 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 is required to be
detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.”
4. 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.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings S.C.No.20/2024/C1, dated 23.07.2024 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,
Murugesan, S/o.(Late).Raman, aged 45 years, now confined in Central Prison,
Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.]
20.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
gd
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – Salem,
Salem District.
5.State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Pennagaram Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
