Madras High Court
Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2208 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.2208 of 2024
Meena ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2 The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
3 The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal.
4 The Inspector of Police,
R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order dated
29.05.2024 passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV.No.596 of 2024 and
quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
Husband Vignesh S/o.Sankar, aged 26 years, who is presently undergoing
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2208 of 2024
detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gayathri
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
BCDFGISSSV.No.596 of 2024, dated 29.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the
present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The 161 statement of the relative is undated. Thus, the detenue has been
deprived of submitting representation in an effective manner.
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'1. 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
11999 2 SCC 413
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 BCDFGISSSV.No.596 of 2024, dated 29.05.2024 is quashed and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Vignesh S/o.Sankar, aged 26
years, now confined in Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai , 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.]
gd 20.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1 The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2 The Commissioner of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
3 The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal.
4 The Inspector of Police,
R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District
5 The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
gd
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
