Madras High Court
Kamatchi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 20 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.3309 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3309 of 2024
Kamatchi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2024 in
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.3309 of 2024
BCDFGISSSV No.1132 of 2024 against the petitioner's son Prakash, S/o.
Balan, aged about 24 years, who is confined at 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.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ of habeas corpus has been filed challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent in proceedings
No.1132/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 18.11.2024.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit that the Remand Extension Order dated 15.11.2024 has been
improperly translated.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. The ground case facts would reveal that fight between two
groups resulted in commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the said
ground case may not fall under the definition of breach of public order. The
"public disorder" and "law and order" are distinguished by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia.
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that preventive detention
in the present case may not be required. The criminal cases registered can be
dealt with by the police Authorities under the law of the land.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings No.1132/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
18.11.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenu, viz., Prakash, aged 24 years, S/o. Balan confined at 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.] [M.J.R., J.]
20.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
20.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
