Madras High Court
Kavitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2182 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.2182 of 2024
Kavitha ... Petitioner/mother of the detenu
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
H-8 Thiruvottriyur Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. ... 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 relating to Petitioners son
detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated
06.06.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings
No.639/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the respondents herein to produce the said Petitioner's son namely Sunil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.2182 of 2024
aged 22 years son of Venkatesh before this Honble High Court and set him at
liberty now Petitioners son detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600
066
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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
proceedings No.639/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024 is sought to be
quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The 161 Statement relied by the detaining authority, which is enclosed
in the typeset of paper 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
11999 2 SCC 413
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.639/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
06.06.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue
viz., Sunil aged 22 years son of Venkatesh 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.]
20.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
H-8 Thiruvottriyur Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.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
