Gugesh @ Gugeshkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Gugesh @ Gugeshkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

... Respondents Page No.1 of 8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Detention order No. 70/2024 dated 22.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Gugesh @ Gugeshkumar, s/o. Manickam, aged about 35 years, now detained as "Drug Offender" at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Gugesh @ Gugeshkumar aged about 35 years, s/o. Manickam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his Detention Order No.70/2024 dated 22.10.2024 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) Page No.2 of 8

of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.95 and 96 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would further submit that non-furnishing of the documents Page No.3 of 8

relied on by the Detaining Authority in vernacular language to the detenue, will not cause any prejudice to the detenu and on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. Therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.95 and 96 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of translated copy of the said documents in the vernacular language would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Page No.4 of 8

Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

''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. Page No.

...

...

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.''

7. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.95 and 96 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order in No.70/2024 dated 22.10.2024, passed by the second Page No.6 of 8

respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Gugesh @ Gugeshkumar, aged about 35 years, s/o. Manickam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 07.07.2025 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No rm To:

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.7 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

AND R.POORNIMA, J.

rm ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.65 of 2024 DATED : 07.07.2025 Page No.8 of 8