Madras High Court
Jayanthi Babu vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 26 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2273 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.2273 of 2024
Jayanthi Babu ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu represented by
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Commission Office,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2273 of 2024
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records pertaining to the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.615/BCDFGISSSV/2024
dated 03.06.2024 against the petitioner's son Janakiraman @ Ajay S/o. Babu
Male aged 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji
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
03.06.2024 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. The Government Order in G.O.(D)No.82, Home Prohibition and
Excise (XVI) Department dated 15.04.2024 enclosed at page nos.75 to 77 in
volume -I of the booklet served on the detenu has not been translated in the
language known to the detenue. Thus, the detenu has been deprived of
submitting his representation in an effective manner.
4. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings No.615/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 03.06.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Janakiraman @ Ajay, aged 25 years, S/o. Babu confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement
is required in connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[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 Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Commission Office,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station,
Chennai.
7. 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
