Allowed

M.Jaya v. State Rep.by

Madras HC14 Sept 2023HCP/1022/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu challenging his preventive detention. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the non-supply of a Tamil translation of a crucial grounds document, relied on by the detaining authority, rendered the detenu incapable of making an effective representation. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in Powanammal, the detention orde

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 10.04.2023 is set aside and the detenu Murali is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

M.Jaya Vs State Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.09.2023

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶7

M.Jaya W/o.Murali .. Petitioner / Wife of Detenu

¶8

¶9

1.State of Tamilnadu

¶10

Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Villupuram District,

¶12

Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Villupuram District.

¶14

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, Kiliyanur Police Station, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/10

¶18

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Rc.No.C2/25890/2023, dated 10.04.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Murali alias Thavakkalai Murali, S/o.Perumal aged about 44 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Yuvaraj

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' (hereinafter 'HCP' for the

¶25

sake of convenience and clarity) was listed before this Court in the Admission Board on 19.06.2023, this Court made the following order:

¶26

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

¶27

2/10

¶28

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶29

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

¶30

3/10

¶31

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶32

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

¶33

4/10

¶34

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶35

2. The aforementioned 19.06.2023 Admission Board order captures all

¶36

essentials, i.e., all facts that are imperative for appreciating the final order and therefore, we are not setting out the facts again in this final order. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. Be that as it may, we are using the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order in this order also for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶37

3. To be noted, 'detention order dated 10.04.2023 bearing reference

¶38

Rc.No.C2/25890/2023 made by the Detaining Authority' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' in this order for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

¶39

Mr.U.Yuvaraj, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

¶40

5. Learned counsel for petitioner, in the admission board projected the argument that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority

¶41

qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

5/10

¶43

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶44

application of mind but in the final hearing board, learned counsel predicated his campaign against impugned preventive detention order on one point and that one point turns on not providing of translated copy of a document (relied on by the detaining authority) in a language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on the above submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.31 of the grounds booklet which is a letter dated 24.03.2023 sent by the Judicial Magistrate concerned to the Forensic Science Department in English. No Tamil translation of this document has been furnished to the detenu.

¶45

This Court had the benefit of perusing the grounds booklet. We also noticed that the aforementioned page contains a letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate concerned to the Forensic Science Department requesting to examine the case property and to file a report but no Tamil translation of this document has been furnished to the detenu. 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.

¶46

7. Be that as it may, we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is low level. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil.

¶47

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

¶48

6/10

¶49

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶50

We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the 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:

¶51

'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.

¶52

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. '

¶53

9. We find that the aforementioned Powanammal case applies in all

¶54

fours to the case on hand as we find that the letter of the Judicial Magistrate

¶55

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

¶56

7/10

¶57

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶58

which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned

¶59

preventive detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same in Tamil the lone language known to the detenu has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation of the impugned detention order. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶60

10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 10.04.2023 bearing reference Rc.No.C2/25890/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Murali @ Thavakkalai Murali, aged 44 years, son of Thiru.Perumal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case /

¶61

cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 14.09.2023

¶63

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order rsi

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

8/10

¶67

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Villupuram District, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶71

3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Villupuram District.

¶72

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶73

5.The Inspector of Police, Kiliyanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶74

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶75

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

¶76

9/10

¶77

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶78

M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL , J.,

¶79

rsi

¶80

H.C.P.No.1022 of 2023

¶81

14.09.2023

¶82

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

¶83

10/10

M.Jaya v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jaya v. State Rep.by

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

Chandiran Vs the Secretary to Government

Manjusha Vs the Secretary to Government

George Vs the Secretary to Government

Anil Jain Vs Directorate of Enforcement

S.Papa Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Sumathi Vs Secretary to Government