Madras High CourtHCP/3171/2024allowed

B.Vaishnavi v. State Rep By

2025-06-17Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh,Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN B.Vaishnavi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai 4.The Inspector of Police V-1, Villivakkam 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 pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in

No.1131/ BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 18.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely Boobalan, S/o.Murugan, aged 23 years, Goonda now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Kalyani For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH , J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, viz. Boobalan, aged 23 years, S/o.Murugan, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2024 slapped on her husband, branding her 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 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 similar case bail order furnished to the detenu has not been translated. In this circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective representation.

4.On a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.286 to 288 of the booklet in Volume-II, a copy of the similar case bail order dated 18.09.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue 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. 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.

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 18.11.2024 in No.1131/ BCDFGISSSV/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Boobalan, aged about 23 years, S/o.Murugan, presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 17.06.2025 kas Index: Yes/No To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas 17.06.2025