Parthiban v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Parthiban ... Petitioner -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate District Collector Office Tenkasi, Tenkasi District 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the detenu, namely, Parthiban, son of Kadalmani @ Kadarkari, aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.M.Karunakaran for Mr.K.Sivabalan 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., Parthiban, son of Kadalmani @ Kadarkari, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-funishing of legible copy of the remand report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the translated copy of the remand report dated 25.06.2023 in the vernacular language was furnished at Page No.349 of the booklet, the English copy of the said remand report available at Page No.347 is illegible, thereby the petitioner is unable to understand whether the translated copy of the remand report in the vernacular language available at Page No.349 is the correct translation of the remand report available at page No.347 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has furnished translated copy of the remand report dated 25.06.2023 in the vernacular language at Page No.349 of the booklet. However, the remand report in English available at page No.347 is illegible. Therefore, it cannot be understand that the translation copy of the remand report in the vernacular language available at Page No.349 is the correct translation of the remand report available at Page No.347. This furnishing of
illegible copy of the remand report available at Page No.347 of the booklet would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
5. 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 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.
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. ...
...
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.''
6. 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 legible copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.347 of the Booklet 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention M.H.S.Confdl No.56/2023, dated 24.07.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Parthiban, son of Kadalmani @ Kadarkari, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 04.04.2024 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No krk To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector Office, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.
krk 04.04.2024