Anitha v. The Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.02.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR H.C.P.No.2945 of 2024 Anitha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Tiruppur City Tiruppur District 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District 4.The Inspector of Police Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station Tiruppur District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the

petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 30.10.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.93/G/IS/Tiruppur City/ 2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Saravanakumar, S/o.Varadharajan, aged 42 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Saravanakumar, S/o.Varadharajan, aged 42 years, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.10.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,

Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the remand extension order through video conferencing has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. On a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page No.155 and 156 of the booklet, a copy of the remand extension order dated 09.10.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

5. 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.

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."

6. 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.

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 30.10.2024 in C.No.93/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu

viz., Saravanakumar, S/o.Varadharajan, aged 42 years, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 17.02.2025 Index: Yes/No kas To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Tiruppur City Tiruppur District 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District 4.The Inspector of Police Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station Tiruppur District

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and N.SENTHILKUMAR , J.

kas H.C.P.No.2945 of 2024 17.02.2025