Madras High Court
Ramswaroop Jatav vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 26 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2177 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
H.C.P.No.2177 of 2024
Ramswaroop Jatav ... Petitioner/Father of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Detaining Authority/The Commissioner
of Police,
Coimbatore City, 62, Old Post Office Rd,
Near Railway Station, Opp.Collector Office,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Dr.Nanjapaa Road,
ATT Colony, Gopalapuram,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Hozur Road, Old Post Office Road,
Opposite Collector Office,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2177 of 2024
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected
with the order of the second respondent herein in C.No.91/G/IS/2024 dated
31.07.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenu namely Anil Jatav, Son of
Ramswaroop Jatav, aged about 24 years, who is confined at Coimbatore,
Central Prison and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents
herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan
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
31.07.2024 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.
3. Most of the documents enclosed along with the booklet served on
the detenu have not been translated and furnished to the detenu in the language
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
known to him. The detenu is a native of Madhya Pradesh and the known
language is Hindi.
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 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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings C.No.91/G/IS/2024 dated 31.07.2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., R.Anil Jatav,
aged 24 years, S/o. Ramswaroop Jatav confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
26.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Detaining Authority/The Commissioner
of Police,
Coimbatore City, 62, Old Post Office Rd,
Near Railway Station, Opp.Collector Office,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Dr.Nanjapaa Road,
ATT Colony, Gopalapuram,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Hozur Road, Old Post Office Road,
Opposite Collector Office,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
