Madras High Court
Kaliammal vs State Represented By on 27 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2185 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
H.C.P.No.2185 of 2024
Kaliammal ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Steel Plant Police Station,
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
C.M.P.No.62/Goonda/SALEM CITY/2024 dated 08.08.2024 on the file of the
Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent herein and quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2185 of 2024
the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu
Thiru.Manikandan, S/o. Siddan, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi
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
08.08.2024 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 Accident Register enclosed at page.no.6 in Volume - I of the
booklet served on the detenu has not been translated in the language known to
the detenu. Thus, the detenu has been deprived of submitting his representation
in an effective manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.M.P.No.62/Goonda/Salem City/2024 dated
08.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenu viz., Manikandan, aged 23 years, S/o. Siddan confined at Central Prison,
Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
27.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Salem.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Steel Plant Police Station,
Salem.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
