Allowed

Manju v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Jun 2024HCP/159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of the petitioner's husband under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that furnishing an illegible copy of a vital document in the grounds of detention deprived the detenu of the right to make effective representation, rendering the detention order illegal and liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Manju Vs State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.159 of 2024

¶7

Manju

¶8

... Petitioner / wife of the detenue

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, R-1 Mambalam Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

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

¶16

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶17

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 09.01.2024 in Memo No.20/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's husband, Ramesh Kumar, Male, aged 26, S/o.Kandhan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶22

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Ramesh Kumar, aged 26, S/o.Kandhan, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai , has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 09.01.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

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

¶25

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶26

Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶27

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶28

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶29

3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with an illegible copy in volume-I of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶30

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the Accident Register in Page No.13 in Volume-I of the booklet furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶34

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶35

Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:

¶36

“9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶40

denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of nonsupply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.

¶41

..... 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. ”

¶42

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶43

Page 5 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

HCP.No.159 of 2024

¶46

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 09.01.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.20 of 2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ramesh Kumar, Male, aged 26, S/o.Kandhan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 12.06.2024

¶48

Index: Yes/No Anu

¶49

(2/2)

¶50

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶51

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66

¶52

4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order,