High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 24.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1425 of 2024 Subalakshmi... Petitionervs.1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police,Thisayanvilai Police Station,Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.473 of 2024)4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.157/2024, dated 16.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely, Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 Vevinkumar, Son of Sudalaimani aged about 26 years now detained as “Goonda” at Palaymkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.B.P. RaghavanFor 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 wife of the detenu viz., Vevinkumar, Son of Sudalaimani aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.157/2024, dated 16.09.2024, 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 Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible documents at Page Nos.157 to 160 of the booklet and further, the translated copies of Page Nos.157 to 161 have not been furnished to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in respect of page Nos.157 and 159 of book let are legible. He fairly submitted that the translated copies of Page Nos.157 to 161 of the booklet were not furnished to the detenu. 5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is found that the translated documents furnished at Page Nos.157 to 161 of the booklet are not legible and the translated version of the documents at Page Nos.157 to 161 have not been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing illegible copies and non furnishing of translated copies of the vital documents 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 Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 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. 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 Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 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 the translated copies of the Page Nos.157 to 161 have not been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of improper translation in the 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.7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1406 of 2024 detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.157/2024, dated 16.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vevinkumar, Son of Sudalaimani aged about 26 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.] 24.06.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpTo:1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police,Thisayanvilai Police Station,Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.473 of 2024)4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.5.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.1406 of 2024 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No.1425 of 2024DATED : 24.06.2025Page No.7 of 7