Paneerselvam v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 11.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1034/2023 Paneerselvam ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Addl.Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Superintendent of Police Vellore.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

5.The Inspector of Police Pallikonda Police Station Vellore District.

.. Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in C3/D.O/36/2023 dated 08.05.2023 in detain the detenu under 2[f] of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Sudarsan, son of Paneerselvam aged about 19 years who is detained at Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) (1)The petitioner, father of the detenu Sudarsan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.05.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. (3)Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the detenu was furnished with a Booklet without the translation of his own bail petition in the vernacular language and which bail petition is relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu's release on bail. (4)It is seen that in page No.95 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, the English version of the bail petition filed by him the ground case has not been translated in the vernacular version.

This non furnishing of the vital document in vernacular language would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. (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'bleSupreme Court had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language.

Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. 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 as follows:-

(6) Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read 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 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 nonsupply 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.''

(7)Thus, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non furnishing of the vital document in the vernacular language and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

(8)In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.05.2023 in C3/DO/36/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sudarsan, S/o.Paneerselvam, aged 19 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [SSSRJ] [SMJ] 11.10.2023 AP

To 1.The Addl.Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Superintendent of Police Vellore.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

5.The Inspector of Police Pallikonda Police Station Vellore District.

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1034/2023 11.10.2023