Allowed

Murugeswari v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC29 Apr 2024HCP/255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as it violated Article 22(5). The order relied on a confession statement in Tamil with partial English text that was untranslated, depriving the detenu of an opportunity to make an effective representation. The petition for Habeas Corpus was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Murugeswari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.255 of 2024

¶7

Murugeswari ... Petitioner/wife of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶10

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

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, G-3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.705/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 29.12.2023

¶15

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶17

passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband, Karthick, S/o.Dalayan, aged about 35 years, the detenue, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Karthick, S/o.Dalayan, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 29.12.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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

¶22

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶24

Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶25

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶26

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶27

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the confession statement of the Deputy Director (Narcotics), Department of Forensic Science, has not been properly translated. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.

¶28

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, particularly in page No.87, this Court finds that the copy of the confession statement of the Deputy Director (Narcotics), Department of Forensic Science, was in Tamil, however, some portion of the confession statement is in English and the same is not translated in Tamil. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied upon by the

¶29

Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶31

Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶32

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

¶33

“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

¶34

Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶36

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 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 non-supply 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.

¶37

..... 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. ”

¶38

Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶40

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

¶41

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶42

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by

¶43

the second respondent on 29.12.2023 in Memo

¶44

No.705 /BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Karthick, S/o.Dalayan, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶45

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 29.04.2024

¶46

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

Anu

¶48

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

¶53

3.The Inspector of Police, G-3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai.

¶54

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶55

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai

¶56

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶57

Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

HCP.No.255 of 2024

¶59

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

Anu

H.C.P.No.255 of 2024

29.04.2024

Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Murugeswari v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugeswari v. State of Tamilnadu 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

Divya Vs the Addl Secretary to the Government of India

Ranjith Vs State Rep.by

P.Shabeer Mohamed Vs the Superintendent of Police

Priyadharshini Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Asaithambi Vs State Rep.by

Mrs.Chitra Vs the Secretary to the Government