Allowed

V.Parvathi v. the State Rep

Madras HC21 Sept 2023HCP/1015/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition quashing a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The court held that failing to translate a crucial similar-case bail order relied upon in the detention grounds into Tamil vitiated the detention due to the detenu's low literacy and lack of English knowledge.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 05.05.2023 (C.O.C.No.23 of 2023) was set aside, and the detenu Tmt. Gunasundhari was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

V.Parvathi Vs the State Rep — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1015 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.1015 OF 2023

¶7

V.Parvathi

¶8

.. Petitioner VS

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The District Collector and

¶12

District Magistrate Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police Pudupattinam Police Station Mayiladuthurai District. .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records

¶16

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

¶17

1/11

¶18

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶19

relating to the proceedings of the second respondent herein in C.O.C.No.23 of 2023 dated 05.05.2023 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's mother the detenue Thirumathi. Gunasundhari, aged about 48 years, now detained at Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirappalli in TPDA No.1136, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Harish for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter

¶25

'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on

¶26

19.06.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶27

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

¶28

2/11

¶29

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶30

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

¶31

3/11

¶32

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶33

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

¶34

4/11

¶35

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶36

2.The aforementioned order made in the 19.06.2023

¶37

Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order

¶38

which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.

¶39

3.There are four adverse cases. The ground case which

¶40

constitutes substantial part of s ubstratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.105 of 2023 on the file of Pudhupattinam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is

¶41

not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

¶42

4.Mr.B.Harish, learned counsel representing

¶43

M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates, for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned

¶44

State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind for all respondents are before us.

¶45

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

¶46

5/11

¶47

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶48

5.To be noted, 'order dated 05.05.2023 bearing reference

¶49

C.O.C.No.23/2023' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶50

6.As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission learned counsel for petitioner predicated his argument that some of the pages in the grounds booklet furnished to the detenue are illegible which prevented the detenue from making an effective representation however in the final hearing today learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that similar case bail order relied on by the Detaining Authority was not properly translated in a language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page Nos.164 to 167 of the booklet which is the similar case bail order dated 29.11.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.4000 of 2022 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶51

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

¶52

6/11

¶53

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶54

7.As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us

¶55

learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.

¶56

8.We carefully considered the rival submissions. This Court

¶57

is informed that the literacy level of the detenue is very low and we find that the detenue has barely managed to sign in Tamil.

¶58

9.We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that similar case bail order forms part of the ground on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made. As this turns on obtaining scenario which comes to light from the booklet which is before us, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.

¶59

10.Be that as it may, we are informed that the detenue is not educated. We are also informed that the detenue is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs.

¶60

State of Tamil Nadu , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to

¶61

this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the

¶62

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

¶63

7/11

¶64

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶65

Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to 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:

¶66

'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.

¶67

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. '

¶68

11.In the case on hand, we find that similar case bail order

¶69

which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same has impaired her constitutional right to make an effective

¶70

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

¶71

8/11

¶72

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶73

representation qua the impugned detention order. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶74

12.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed.

¶75

Impugned detention order dated 05.05.2023 bearing reference C.O.C.No.23 of 2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Tmt.Gunasundhari, aged 48 years, wife of Thiru. Vaithiyanathan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with

¶76

any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 21.09.2023

¶78

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking TK

¶79

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirappalli.

¶80

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

¶81

9/11

¶82

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶83

¶84

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶85

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶86

3.The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶87

4.The Inspector of Police Pudupattinam Police Station Mayiladuthurai District.

¶88

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶89

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

¶90

10/11

¶91

H.C.P.No.1015 of 2023

¶92

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

¶93

¶94

H.C.P.NO.1015 OF 2023

¶95

21.09.2023

¶96

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

¶97

11/11

V.Parvathi v. the State Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Parvathi v. the State Rep

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

D. Natarajan Vs the State Rep

Suguna Vs the Secretary to Government