Madras High Court
Susila vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1489 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.1489 of 2024
Susila ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 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 pertaining to the impugned detention
order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in Detention
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1489 of 2024
M.H.S.Confdl.No.146/2024 dated 26.08.2024 in detaining the detenu under
Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Drug-Offender and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Vanmahesh,
S/o.Chelladurai, Male, aged about 24 years, who is detained in Central Prison,
Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vanmahesh, son of
Chelladurai, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.146/2024, dated 26.08.2024, holding
him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have
also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu,
has relied on the documents, which are available in Vol-I at Page Nos.73 to 81 of
the booklet and it is in English language. Though the petitioner asked for
translated copy of the same in the vernacular language, the same has not been
furnished by the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is
deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.73 to 81
of Volume-I of the booklet, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the
detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the said
document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective
representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned
detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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.
The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''6. The short question that falls for our
consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version
of the order of remand passed in English, a language not
known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
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
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
nonsupply 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.''
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated copy of the
documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.75 to 81 of Volume-I
of the booklet, in vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his
constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned
preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in
the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.146/2024, dated 26.08.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vanmahesh, aged about 24 years,
son of Chelladurai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.
NCC : Yes / No [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
Index : Yes / No 11.06.2025
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
am
11.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
