Madras High CourtHCP/407/2025allowed

Venkatesan v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

2025-06-17Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh,Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.407 of 2025 Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai - 66 4.The Inspector of Police Alpha-3, Bank Fraud Investigating Wing Central Crime Branch Chennai ... 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 14.02.2025

in Memo No.88/BCDFGISSSV/2025, against the petitioner's son namely Harinath, S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 35 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.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu viz. Harinath, S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 35 years, confined at Central prison, Puzhal Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.02.2025 slapped on his 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copies of certain documents. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that in Volume I, Page Nos.353 and 361 of the booklet furnished to the detenu, are illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

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. 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 nonsupply 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 14.02.2024 in No.88/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu

viz. Harinath, S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 35 years, confined at Central prison, Puzhal Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 17.06.2025 kas Index: Yes/No To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas H.C.P.No.407 of 2025 17.06.2025