Anbu v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.2013 of 2024 Anbu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet 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 in No.564/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 22.05.2024 on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the
detenue Rakesh @ Rakki, Son of Anbu, aged about 21 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy 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.564/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 22.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the translation copy of the Government Order in Pg.No.132 has not been furnished to the detenue. The detenue has no knowledge in reading English and non translation of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenue from submitting effective representation, which is a valuable right under the Act.
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'1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenue 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 detenue, 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 11999 2 SCC 413
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 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 No.564/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 22.05.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Rakesh @ Rakki, Son of Anbu, aged about 21 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.] 28.08.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gd
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
H.C.P.No.2013 of 2024 28.08.2024