Allowed

Jeyaraman v. The Principal Secretary to the Government

Madras HC19 Oct 2023HCP(MD)/908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition against a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that failing to provide a Tamil translation of crucial grounds relied upon against an illiterate detenu only conversant with Tamil rendered the continued detention illegal under the Powanammal principle.

What did the court decide?

The impugned preventive detention order dated 22.06.2023 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Jeyaraman Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶8

H.C.P.(MD)No.908 of 2023

Jeyaraman

: Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶13

Secretariat,

¶14

Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City, Trichirappalli.

¶16

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli.

¶17

: Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 9

¶19

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

¶20

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.58/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2023 dated 22.06.2023 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Detenu namely Jeyaraman S/o.Panneerselvam, Male, aged about 33 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli District, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

¶24

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

This 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated

¶29

22.06.2023 bearing reference C.No.

¶30

58/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience] made by the second respondent Commissioner of Police, who shall hereinafter be

¶31

Page 2 of 9

¶32

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

¶33

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶34

referred to as 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent but we find that Station House Officer of Thillai Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'Sponsoring Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶35

2. Impugned detention order has been made 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 Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] branding the detenu as a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

¶36

3. There are two adverse cases. The impugned preventive detention order has been passed based on a ground case in Crime No.976 of 2023 on the file of Thillai Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli for the alleged offences under Section 273, 328 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 24(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of

¶37

Page 3 of 9

¶38

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

¶39

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶40

Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.

¶41

4. Today, Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin, learned Counsel on record for

¶42

petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents are before us.

¶43

5. Learned counsel on record for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that point is not providing translated copy of documents (relied on by the detaining authority) in the lone language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page Nos.114 and 115 of the grounds booklet served on the detenu which is a Government Order bearing reference G.O.(D)No.89 [Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department] dated 12.04.2023. Tamil translation of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenu is learned HCP petitioner counsel's say.

¶44

6. We had the benefit of perusing the aforementioned grounds

¶45

Page 4 of 9

¶46

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

¶47

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶48

booklet. We also noticed that the said G.O.(D)No.89 form 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 grounds booklet which is before us, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.

¶49

7. Be that as it may, we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is X Standard and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal principle i.e., ratio in Powanammal Vs.

¶50

State of Tamil Nadu {(1999) 2 SCC 413} , 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. 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

Page 5 of 9

¶53

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

¶54

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶55

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.'

¶56

8. We find that the aforementioned Powanammal case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the Government Order which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned preventive detention order are crucial documents 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 preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in clause (5) of Article 22. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged in this habeas drill on hand.

¶57

9. Before concluding by writing the operative paragraph of this order, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

¶58

Page 6 of 9

¶59

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

¶60

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶61

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

¶62

preventive detention order dated 22.06.2023 bearing reference C.No. 58/Detention/C.P.O./T.C/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Jayaraman, male, aged 33 years, son of Thiru.Panneerselvam 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.

¶63

[M.S.,J.] & [R.S.V.,J.]

¶64

19.10.2023

¶65

Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes MR

¶66

Page 7 of 9

¶67

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

¶68

HCP(MD)No.908 of 2023