Geetha v. Government Of Pondicherry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 12.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1645/2023 Geetha ..
Petitioner
Versus
1.Government of Pondicherry rep.by its Chief Secretary, Govt of Puducherry.
2.District Magistrate cum Authorised Officer Government of Puducherry, officer of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3.The Superintendent of Police [South] Puducherry.
4.The Inspector of Police Ariyankuppam Police Station Puducherry.
5.The Chief Superintendent of Jail Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry.
..
Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records culminating in the passing of the order of detention the petitioner's son the defence under Prevention at Anti-social, Activity Act, 2008 vide detention order No.05/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2023 dated 14.07.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Sathish @ Mambazha Sathish @ Manikandan, aged about 29 years before this Court and therefore, after set him at liberty from the detention now confined at Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry at one. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Govindaraju For Respondents :
Mr.K.S.Mohandoss Public Prosecutor, Puducherry
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.07.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Dangerous Person" under the Prevention of Anti Social Activity Act, 2008. (2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. (3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in passing the order of
detention. In the present case, though the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 06.02.2023, the Detention Order was passed only on 14.07.2023.
(4)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushantha Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715, has dealt with similar situation and has held in paragraph No.21 as follows:- ''In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident from Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same." (5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court was persuaded to allow the Appeal filed
before it mainly on the ground that delay in passing the Order of Detention from the date of the proposal would snap the ''live and proximate link'' between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. Therefore, failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in explaining such delay as in the present case also is a valid ground for quashing the Detention Order.
(6)Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the documents pertaining to the FIR copy in Crime No.24/2023 found in pages No.103 to 107, are illegible and could not be read. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non furnishing of legible copies of vital document, thereby depriving the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation against the detention order to the authorities concerned. (7)This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to discard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from pages No.103 to 107, of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, the documents pertaining to the FIR copy in Crime No.24/2023 are not clear and the said documents are illegible. The furnishing of illegible copies of the
documents would deprive the detenu of his valuable right in making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. (8)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 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.
''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.''
(9)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.
(10)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.07.2023 in No.05/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.] 12.12.2023 AP Internet: Yes
To 1.The Chief Secretary Government of Pondicherry Puducherry.
2.District Magistrate cum Authorised Officer Government of Puducherry, officer of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3.The Superintendent of Police [South] Puducherry.
4.The Inspector of Police Ariyankuppam Police Station Puducherry.
5.The Chief Superintendent of Jail Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1645/2023 12.12.2023