Jenifer v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Jenifer .. Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District.
.. Respondents 1/8
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the Detention Order vide B3/D.O.No.21/2025 dated 17.03.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's father namely Immanuvel @ Sathikbasha, S/o.Samuvel @ Nawab John, aged 55 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Vellore), before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Arun Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the daughter of detenu viz. Immanuvel @ Sathikbasha, aged about 55 years, S/o.Samuel @ Nawab John, now confined in Central Prison at Vellore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 11703.2025, issued on her father, 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, 2/8
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 grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the arrest intimation, has not been properly translated. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.
4.On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-I, particularly page Nos.39, this Court finds that a copy of the arrest intimation is available in both Tamil and English. However, certain portions of the English version have not been translated into the vernacular language. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective 3/8
satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds 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.
continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the nonsupply 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."
5/8
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 in B3/D.O.No.21/2025 dated 17.03.2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The petitioner's father / detenu viz., Immanuvel @ Sathikbasha, aged about 55 years, S/o.Samuel @ Nawab John, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, 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) 01.07.2025 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No : Yes / No 6/8
To 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District.
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7/8
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk 01.07.2025 8/8