Manjula v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1999 of 2024 Manjula ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Ariyoor Police Station, Vellore District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 23.07.2024 in C3.D.O.No.58/2024 against the petitioner's husband by name Thiru.Nadupaiyan, S/o. Pappanan, aged about 45 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.07.2024 is under challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3.
The bail application enclosed at page no.32 of volume - I of the booklet served on the detenue has not been translated in the language
known to the detenue. Thus, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
4.
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. 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."
5.
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.
6.
Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.07.2024 in proceedings C3/D.O.No.58/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nadupaiyan, aged 45 years, S/o. Pappanan confined at Central Prison, Vellore 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.] 05.09.2024 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No veda
To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.
4.
The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.
5.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Ariyoor Police Station, Vellore District.
7.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda H.C.P.No.1999 of 2024 05.09.2024