Allowed

Suguna v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Sept 2023HCP/1003/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a habeas corpus petition allowed the petitioner's challenge to a preventive detention order. The court held that the order was vitiated due to improper translation discrepancies between the English and Tamil versions of a relevant bail order, which impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation given his low literacy level.

What did the court decide?

The impugned preventive detention order dated 18.05.2023 was set aside, and the detenu Raji was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Suguna Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

H.C.P.NO.1003 OF 2023

¶7

Suguna .. Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Tamilnadu rep. by

¶10

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City

¶13

Office of the Commissioner of Police

¶14

Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police M-6 Manali Police Station Tiruvallur District.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

1/12

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶22

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶23

praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No. BCDFGISSSV No.134/2023 dated 18.05.2023 against the petitioner Husband Raji male 24 years son of Balu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ]

¶27

When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP'

¶28

for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on 15.06.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶29

2/12

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶32

3/12

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶35

4/12

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶38

2.The aforementioned Admission Board captures all essentials

¶39

that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting

¶40

out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations

¶41

used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

¶42

3.Mr.S.Selvakumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind for all the respondents are before us.

¶43

4 . To be noted, 'order dated 18.05.2023 bearing reference No.134/BCDFGISSSV/2023' made by second respondent / Detaining

¶44

Authority shall in this order be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶45

5.As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the point that family

¶46

5/12

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶49

members of the detenu were not informed about the detention of the detenu

¶50

but in the final hearing Board today, learned counsel predicated his campaign

¶51

against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being released on bail is impaired.

¶52

6.Elaborating on the aforementioned point on subjective satisfaction, learned counsel for petitioner drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned preventive detention order which reads as

¶53

follows:

¶54

'4...In a similar case registered at under section 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, in J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.43/2018, the bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1759/2018. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in M-6 Manali Police Station Cr.No.156/2023 and also there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in M-6 Manali Police Station Cr.No.155/2023 case by filing bail application before the

¶55

6/12

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶58

appropriate court, since in similar case bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time...'

¶59

7.Thereafter, learned counsel placed before us the grounds

¶60

booklet as served on the detenu and drew our attention to page Nos.171 to 174 thereat which contain Aravind case bail order (similar case) made in English by the learned Sessions Judge and what according to the Detaining Authority is Tamil translation version of the same i.e., Aravind case bail order. A perusal of the bail order in English and the Tamil translated version brings to light that the bail order in English refers to pending cases against the petitioner with specificity as regards calendar years in paragraph (6) but in the Tamil translation, the same is missing.

¶61

8.Learned Prosecutor in response to the above argument

¶62

submitted that only mentioning of the calender years of pending cases with specificity is missing, the same is clerical error but otherwise the translation is largely correct.

¶63

7/12

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶66

9.We carefully considered the rival submissions. We find from

¶67

the confession statement of the detenu at page Nos.143 to 145 of the grounds

¶68

booklet that the literacy level of the detenu is X Standard in School. Therefore, it is not merely a case of improper translation it is also a case of giving orders with different contents in English and Tamil version which can baffle a person whose literacy level is only X Standard in School. This means that (when a detenu is baffled), his right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order gets impaired.

¶69

10.We also remind ourselves o f Powanammal case i.e.,

¶70

Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed to itself this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed to itself is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 [as in SCC journal] read as follows:

¶71

8/12

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶74

'6.The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

¶75

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. '

¶76

11.Therefore, this is a case of improper translation as well as providing documents with different contents in two different languages impairing the detenu's right to make an effective representation. The net sequitur is, the impugned preventive detention order is vitiated and the same deserves to be dislodged.

¶77

1 2 .Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive

¶78

detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

¶79

9/12

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶81

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶82

13.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned

¶83

preventive detention order dated 18.05.2023 bearing reference No.134/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Raji, male, aged 24 years, son of Thiru. Balu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)

¶85

21.09.2023

¶86

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking TK

¶87

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶88

10/12

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶90

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶91

¶92

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat,

¶93

Chennai – 600 009.

¶94

2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City

¶95

Office of the Commissioner of Police

¶96

Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶97

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

¶98

4.The Inspector of Police M-6 Manali Police Station Tiruvallur District.

¶99

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.

¶100

11/12

¶101

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶102

H.C.P.No.1003 of 2023

¶103

M.SUNDAR, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶104

¶105

H.C.P.NO.1003 OF 2023

¶106

21.09.2023

¶107

12/12

¶108

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Suguna v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suguna v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Priyadharshini Vs State of Tamilnadu

Porpavai Vs the State Rep.by Its

Kasthuri Vs Secretary to Government

Indumathi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its

V.Parvathi Vs the State Rep

D. Natarajan Vs the State Rep