Pushpa @ Amulu v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Pushpa @ Amulu W/o Viji ..
Petitioner v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District Villupuram
3. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District
4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore Villupuram District
5. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police Brammadesam Police Station Villupuram District (Crime No.284/2024) ..
Respondents Writ 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 Rc.No.C2/29/2024 dated 11.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the detention order as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Viji, Son of Dhatchanamoorthi, aged about 33 years, detenu now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty. For Petitioner ::
Mr.M.Gnanasekar 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 second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/29/2024 dated 11.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The bail order relied upon by the detaining authority, furnished to the detenue is illegible. In view of the fact that illegible documents were served, the detenu has been deprived of submitting an effective
representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to a 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. 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 reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.C2/29/2024 dated 11.07.2024 is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Viji S/o Dhatchanamoorthi aged about 33 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes/no (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.) 06.09.2024 ss To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District Villupuram
3. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District
4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore Villupuram District
5. The Inspector of Police Brammadesam Police Station Villupuram District
6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss 06.09.2024