Allowed

Saraswathi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jun 2014HCP/2209/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Habeas Corpus petition. It quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 because the Tamil translation of an attached remand order was inaccurate and non-innocuous, infringing the detenu's right to make effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order BDFGISSV No.857 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013 is quashed, and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Saraswathi Vs the Government of Tamil… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 03.06.2014

¶3

Coram :-

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

Habeas Corpus Petition No.2209 of 2013

¶6

Saraswathi

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶9

Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in BDFGISSV No.857 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Anand @ Anandakumar, S/o.David, male aged 23 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.857 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:-

¶13

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	R-9, Valasaravakkam Police	Section 302 IPC
	Station, Crime No.866 of 2013

¶14

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station in Crime No.865 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶15

Though 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 there is a variation in translation of the remand order dated 19.07.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶16

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶17

A careful scrutiny of the booklet and comparison of English version of remand order dated 19.07.2013 annexed at Page No.193 of the booklet with the Tamil translation would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following:

¶18

"All accused voluntarily surrender before this Court. Surrender Accepted and Remanded till 22.07.2013. On that day accused shall be produced before the concern Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. Records shall be get to there court immediately.”

¶19

the Tamil version informs thus,

¶20

“vjphpfs; Mye;Jhh; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ruzile;J Mye;Jhh; epjpkd;w eLth; cj;jut[g;go 22/07/2013k; njjp tiu g[Hy; rpiwapy; ,Ue;J 22/07/2013k; njjp ,t;tHf;fpy; hpkhz;l; bra;J g{e;jky;yp 1. cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jhh;/”

¶21

On verification of the booklet at Page No.195, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the sentence “Records shall be get to there immediately” are not found translated in vernacular language. Apart from this, rest of the sentences are also seemingly inaccurate in nature. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

versions, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention.

¶24

For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Anand @ Anandakumar, S/o.David, made in BDFGISSV No.857 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

However, it is made clear that this order shall not
preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter
before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also
made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage
whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ar
To
1. The Secretary to Government of TamilNadu
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police, Egmore
Chennai-8.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (law &order) fort st.George,
Chennai-9

¶26

Habeas Corpus Petition No.2209 of 2013

¶27

aa16/6/2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saraswathi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Secretary to the

R.Govindhammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Rajakumari Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Vali Vs the Secretary to the