Dhanalekshmi v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Dhanalekshmi ... Petitioner vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu, The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Detention Order in C.No.15/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2023 dated 25.03.2023 against the petitioner's son Ramakrishnan, Male aged about 20 years son of Murugesan now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.
Page No.1 of 9
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was listed in the Admission Board before us on 16.10.2023 and we made the following order: Page No.2 of 9
2. The aforementioned Admission Board order captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and we would plunge into the legal drill of testing the impugned preventive detention order in the habeas legal drill on hand. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order dated 16.10.2023 shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. It means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant final order also. Page No.3 of 9
3. Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
4. This 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing the impugned preventive detention order made by the detaining authority. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent and we find that Station House Officer of Tiruchirappalli Sessions Court Police Station, is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'sponsoring authority' for convenience and brevity].
5. There are three adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.63 of 2023 on the file of Tiruchirappalli Sessions Court Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the Page No.4 of 9
case.
6. Learned counsel on record for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that point is not providing translated copy of documents (relied on by the detaining authority) in the lone language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.133-1 of the grounds booklet served on the detenu which is a Government Order bearing reference G.O.(D)No.07 [Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department] dated 11.01.2023. Tamil translation of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenu is learned HCP petitioner counsel's say.
7. We had the benefit of perusing the aforementioned grounds booklet. We also noticed that the said G.O.(D)No.07 forms part of the ground on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made. As this turns on obtaining scenario which comes to light from the grounds booklet which is before us, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.
Page No.5 of 9
8. Be that as it may, we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is VII Standard. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal principle i.e., ratio in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu {(1999) 2 SCC 413}, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which Hon'ble Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. Paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows:
'6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
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.' Page No.6 of 9
9. We find that the aforementioned Powanammal case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the Government Order which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned preventive detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same in Tamil the lone language known 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 saying that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged in this habeas drill on hand.
10. Before concluding by writing the operative paragraph of this order, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
11. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 25.03.2023 bearing reference C.No. 15/Detention/C.P.O./T.C/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ramakrishnan, Male, aged 20 years, son of Page No.7 of 9
Thiru.Murugesan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 15.11.2023 Index : Yes : Yes PKN P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
Page No.8 of 9
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
PKN ORDER MADE IN DATED : 15.11.2023 Page No.9 of 9