it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in

H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.01.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2343 of 2023 Kayalvizhi … Petitioner Vs.1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. … RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 13.09.2023 in 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023BCDFGISSSV No.396/2023 against the petitioner's son Thiru. Sanjay, Male aged about 23 years, S/o.Sankar, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.M.IlliyasFor Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)The petitioner, mother of the detenu namely Sanjay, aged about 23 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 13.09.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 20232.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3.Though several grounds were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the Remand Order dated 04.09.2023 was improperly translated in the vernacular language. 4. On a perusal of the Remand Order dated 04.09.2023 and the translated version, we find that, in English version it is stated that the accused were produced at the residence of the learned XV metropolitan Magistrate, whereas, in the Tamil version it is stated that the accused were produced in the Court for remand. Further in the English version, the detenu is shown as Sanjay @ Kulla, Male, 23 years. However, in the translated version, it is shown as Sanjay, Male, aged 19 years. In view of the improper translation, we are of the view that the right of the detenu to make an effective representation as against the impugned order of detention is curtailed. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023 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 had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. 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 follows: 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023“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. ......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, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023therefore, 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.Thus, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of improper translation of the Remand Order and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.7.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.09.2023 in No. 396/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sanjay, S/o.Sankar, aged about 23 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R., J.) (S.M., J.) 19.01.2024bgaInternet : YesIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / No 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.bga H.C.P.No.2343 of 202319.01.2024 8/8

H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.01.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2343 of 2023 Kayalvizhi … Petitioner Vs.1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. … RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 13.09.2023 in 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023BCDFGISSSV No.396/2023 against the petitioner's son Thiru. Sanjay, Male aged about 23 years, S/o.Sankar, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.M.IlliyasFor Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)The petitioner, mother of the detenu namely Sanjay, aged about 23 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 13.09.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 20232.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3.Though several grounds were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the Remand Order dated 04.09.2023 was improperly translated in the vernacular language. 4. On a perusal of the Remand Order dated 04.09.2023 and the translated version, we find that, in English version it is stated that the accused were produced at the residence of the learned XV metropolitan Magistrate, whereas, in the Tamil version it is stated that the accused were produced in the Court for remand. Further in the English version, the detenu is shown as Sanjay @ Kulla, Male, 23 years. However, in the translated version, it is shown as Sanjay, Male, aged 19 years. In view of the improper translation, we are of the view that the right of the detenu to make an effective representation as against the impugned order of detention is curtailed. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023 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 had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. 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 follows: 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023“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. ......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, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023therefore, 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.Thus, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of improper translation of the Remand Order and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.7.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.09.2023 in No. 396/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sanjay, S/o.Sankar, aged about 23 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R., J.) (S.M., J.) 19.01.2024bgaInternet : YesIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / No 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2343 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.bga H.C.P.No.2343 of 202319.01.2024 8/8