Parvathi v. The Principal Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.342 of 2025 Parvathi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), T-15, SR.M.C. 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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 07.01.2025 in
Memo No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son namely Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, male aged 24 years, S/o.Muthukumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz. Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, aged about 24 years, S/o.Muthukumar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.01.2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the detenu has studied only upto 10th standard and the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation Form given to the detenu has not been fully translated. In this circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume I, it is seen that Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation Form containing in page Nos.126 to 128 are not fully translated in Tamil version. The detenu's qualification is only 10th standard, and he is not well versed in English to read and understand the particulars containing in the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation. Since a specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner to make effective representation, this Court finds that the failure to furnish a proper translated copy of the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation Form, vitiates the Detention Order.
5. 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.
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."
6. 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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 07.01.2025 in No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, aged about 24 years, S/o. Muthukumar, presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 05.06.2025 kas Index: Yes/No To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), T-15, SR.M.C. Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.
kas H.C.P.No.342 of 2025 05.06.2025