Madras High Court
Rajkamal @ Edison vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 25 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1315 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1315 of 2024
Rajkamal @ Edison ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the
detention order of the 2nd respondent in Crl.M.P.No.18/2024 (Drug Offender)
dated 19.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
body or person of the detenu by name Rajkamal @ Edison, Son of Ravi, aged
about 27 years, now detained as “Drug Offender” at Madurai Central Prison,
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1315 of 2024
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Ramesh kumar
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 detenu viz., Rajkamal @ Edison, Son of Ravi,
aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in Crl.M.P.No.18/2024 (Drug Offender) dated 19.09.2024 holding him
to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining
Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on Form of Order for the
detention in custody of an accused person and Forensic Examination Report ,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
which are available in Vol-I at Page Nos.67, 68, 79 and 80 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 have 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 Form of Order for the detention in custody of an accused person and
Forensic Examination Report, in vernacular language, have 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
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.''
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 Form of Order for the detention in custody of an accused person and
Forensic Examination Report, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
of detention in Crl.M.P.No.18/2024 (Drug Offender) dated 19.09.2024, passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Rajkamal @ Edison,
Son of Ravi, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
25.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
trp
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 03:59:42 pm )
