Pattu v. The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.695 of 2024 Pattu ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector / Detaining Authority, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order made in Cr.M.P.No.03/2024 dated 15.02.2024 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and improper and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenue viz., Gnanasekaran, S/o.Rajendran, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Gnanasekaran, S/o.Rajendran, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.02.2024 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.20, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.94 and 95 in Volume-I of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.20, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 10.01.2024 is available and the translated copy in
vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
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 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 15.02.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gnanasekaran, S/o.Rajendran, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 26.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Anu
To 1.The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector / Detaining Authority, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Anu H.C.P.No.695 of 2024 26.06.2024