S.Ijath Ali v. The Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1150 of 2024 S.Ijath Ali ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore.
... 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 connected with the detention order of the second respondent order in C.No.58/G/IS/2023 and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the body and
person of the detenue namely Ijath Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali, aged 21 years, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Santha Kumari For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein is the detenu namely Ijath Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali, aged 21 years, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.08.2023 slapped on him, 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 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 form of remand warrant, is illegible and 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 in page No.29 furnished to the detenue, this Court finds that the copy of the form of remand warrant is illegible and has not been properly translated. Therefore, this furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective 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 '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.
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 08.08.2023 in C.No.58/G/IS/2023, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ijath Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali, aged 21 years, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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] 06.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Anu To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Anu H.C.P.No.1150 of 2024 06.06.2024