Kingsly Paul v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.787 of 2024 Kingsly Paul ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2024 dated 21.02.2024 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's friend namely S.Vignesh @ Auto Vicky, aged about 25 years, S/o.Subramani, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the friend of the detenu S.Vignesh @ Auto Vicky, aged about 25 years, S/o.Subramani, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.02.2024 slapped on his friend, 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.19, 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 this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. On perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page No.85 of the booklet of Vol.2, it is clear that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.19, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024, has not been translated in vernacular language. Therefore,

the detenu 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 the case of '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.

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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

respondent on 21.02.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., S.Vignesh @ Auto Vicky, aged about 25 years, S/o.Subramani, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 28.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Sni

To 1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN , J.

Sni H.C.P.No.787 of 2024 28.06.2024