R.Manju v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.No.896 of 2023 Tmt.R.Manju .. Petitioner / Wife of the detenu Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Vepery Chennai - 600 007 3.The Inspector of Police R1, Mambalam Police Station Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 08.05.2023 in Memo No.149/BCDFGISSSV/2023 against the petitioner's Page Nos.1/9
husband Ramesh @ Rameshkumar, son of Kandan aged about 26 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.V.Paarthiban For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 08.05.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.149/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity] made by 'second respondent' (hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, third respondent is the sponsoring authority.
2. Impugned preventive detention order has been made 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 Page Nos.2/9
Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There is one adverse case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.90 of 2023 on the file of R-1 Mambalam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of brevity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.V.Paarthiban, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5. Learned counsel on record for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that in the grounds booklet running to 136 pages, 62 documents have been annexed, however, from pages 105 to 134, all the pages contain two page numbers Page Nos.3/9
and this has baffled the detenu. A scanned reproduction of the index is as follows:
Page Nos.4/9
Page Nos.5/9
6. In response to the aforementioned argument, learned Prosecutor submitted that it is only an inadvertent secretarial / clerical error and petitioner is making a mountain out of a molehill.
7. We carefully considered the rival submissions. We notice that the literacy level of the detenu is low. As regards the page numbers, more than two page numbers being assigned to the same page, for a large number of pages, while the index does not mention anything about the same is a phenomenon which would baffle any one and it would baffle more a person with low literacy level. This means that the right of the detenu to make an effective representation qua impugned preventive detention order has been impaired. Right of the detenu to make an effective representation is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of learned Prosecutor that it is only an inadvertent secretarial / clerical error. Conversely i.e., axiomatically we sustain the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and the result is, the impugned preventive detention order gets vitiated and becomes liable for being dislodged in habeas legal drill. Page Nos.6/9
8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 08.05.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.149/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ramesh @ Rameshkumar, aged 26 years, Son of Thiru.Kandhan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 11.09.2023 Index : Yes/No gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai Page Nos.7/9
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Vepery Chennai - 600 007 3.The Inspector of Police R1, Mambalam Police Station Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.8/9
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., gpa H.C.P.No.896 of 2023 11.09.2023 Page Nos.9/9