High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 25.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1329 of 2024Backiyaraj... Petitionervs.1. The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Office of the Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Madurai Central Prison,Madurai District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in No.57 / BCDFGISSSV / 2024, dated 20.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Backiyaraj, son of Ramaiah Thevar, aged about 40 years, now detained as “Goonda” at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024For Petitioner: Mr.K. SivabalanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi KumarAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the detenu viz., Backiyaraj, son of Ramaiah Thevar, aged about 40 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No. 57 / BCDFGISSSV / 2024, dated 20.09.2024 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 that the detenu was furnished with defective translation copies of the documents by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.93 and 94 Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024Volume – I 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 Page Nos.93 and 94 Volume I of the Booklet, furnished to the detenu, suffers from supply of documents with flawed translation. This furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document 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 Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024the 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 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.''Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 20246. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that defective translation copies of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.93 and 94, Volume I of the Booklet. This furnishing of defective translation copies 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 in No.57 / BCDFGISSSV / 2024, dated 20.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Backiyaraj, son of Ramaiah Thevar, aged about 40 years, 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.] 25.06.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpPage No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024To:1. The Principal Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Office of the Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Madurai Central Prison,Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No.1329 of 2024DATED : 25.06.2025Page No.7 of 7