Madras High Court
M.Akash vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.c.P.No.3191 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :22.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3191 of 2024
M.Akash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Egmore – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai – 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order in
No.1109/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.11.2024 on the file of the 2nd
respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.c.P.No.3191 of 2024
produce the petitioner/detenue Akash, S/o.Murali aged 24 years now
confined in Central Prison at Puzhal, chennai before this Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.1109/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.11.2024 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 case diary statement and the special report relied by the
detaining authority, which is enclosed in the typeset of paper in Page
Nos.61 and 62 are undated. Thus, the detenue has been deprived of
submitting 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'1. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5]
of the Constitution, observed that the detenue 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 detenue, 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
11999 2 SCC 413
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
..... 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in Proceedings No.1109/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.11.2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Akash, S/o.Murali aged 24 years now confined in Central Prison at Puzhal,
chennai , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is
required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
22.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Egmore – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai – 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gd
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
