Madras High Court
S.Packiaselvi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its on 23 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.920 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.920 of 2024
S.Packiaselvi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its.,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... 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 in detention order in H.S.
(M)Confdl.No.15/2024, dated 11.03.2024, on the file of the second respondent
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.920 of 2024
and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the
petitioner's husband, namely, Anbu @ Anban, son of Santhiyagu Isravel @ Raj,
aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Anbu @ Anban, aged
about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his
order in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.15/2024, dated 11.03.2024 holding him to be a
"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 though the detenu had made a representation to furnish the 'remand
extension order', the same was not furnished to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted
that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. Admittedly, the non-furnishing of the remand extension order
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, 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.
...
...
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that though the detenu had made a
representation to furnish the 'remand extension order', the same was not furnished
to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the remand extension order 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 H.S.(M)Confdl.No.15/2024 dated 11.03.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Anbu @ Anban, aged about 24
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years, son of Santhiyagu Isravel @ Raj, 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.]
23.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its.,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
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.
PKN
23.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
