Sathya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 26 July, 2024

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sathya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 26 July, 2024

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Vignesh @ Appu, male aged about 23 years, son of Ramadoss, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.04.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.68 and 69 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

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, 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 in SCC journal} as follows:

“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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 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, 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. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 order is liable to be quashed.

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 08.04.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.324/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vignesh @ Appu, male aged about 23 years, son of Ramadoss, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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]
                                                                             26.07.2024
                    Index: Yes/No
                    Internet:Yes/No
                    Neutral Citation: Yes/No

                    Anu

Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet containing the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance, to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner with due acknowledgment.

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Chennai District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.978 of 2024 M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Anu H.C.P.No.978 of 2024 26.07.2024 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court