A.Renuka v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1809 of 2024 A.Renuka ... Petitioner/Grand mother of the detenue Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goodas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), F-1, Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024 and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue M.Karthick , S/o.Moorthy aged about 21 years, petitioner's grandson now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhanam For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The ground raised by the petitioner is that though documents have been served on the detenue, the medical report of the Madras Medical College, Chennai was improperly translated. The medical report provided contrary dates in english and tamil version. It is not known which date is the correct one. Such improper translation resulted in causing prejudice to the detenue to submit effective representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
3. 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.
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."
4. 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.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent in Proceedings No.633/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.06.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., M.Karthick , S/o.Moorthy aged about 21 years, now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 13.08.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gd
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goodas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), F-1, Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.s H.C.P.No.1809 of 2024 13.08.2024