Allowed

Velmurugan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Madras HC5 Nov 2024HCP/2645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed a detention order. The court held that the failure to provide an English-language translation of the government order to a detenu who does not read English rendered the continued detention illegal, citing Supreme Court precedent on the need for effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the second respondent is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

Velmurugan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶8

Thiru.Velmurugan S/o Perumal

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu

¶12

rep.by its Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department

¶13

Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

¶14

The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City Chennai District

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai District

¶16

The Inspector of Police R-10 M.G.R Nagar Police Station Chennai District .. Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶21

for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records of the 2^nd respondent in his proceeding No.415/BCDFGISSV/2024 dated 26.04.2024, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner (Velmurugan S/o Perumal, Male, aged 50) before this Hon'ble Court, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal and set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.

¶22

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Jaikumar for Mr.E.Vinothkumar

¶23

For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶26

The order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.415/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 26.04.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the translation copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenu. The detenu has no knowledge in reading English and non translation of the Government Order caused prejudice to the detenu from submitting an effective representation, which is a valuable right conferred under the

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶31

provisions of Act 14 of 1982.

¶32

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

¶33

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:

¶34

“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

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶38

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.

¶39

..... 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. ”

¶40

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

¶41

Page 4 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶44

is liable to be quashed.

¶45

Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.415/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 26.04.2024 is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Velmurugan, aged 50 years, S/o Perumal, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶46

Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 05.11.2024

¶47

¶48

¶49

The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

¶50

The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Chennai District

¶51

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai District

¶52

Page 5 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶55

The Inspector of Police R-10 M.G.R Nagar Police Station Chennai District

¶56

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

¶57

Page 6 of 7

¶58

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

¶59

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.

H.C.P.No.2645 of 2024

¶64

05.11.2024

¶65

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶66

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

Velmurugan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velmurugan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Prabhu Vs The Union of India

T.Suresh Vs The Union of India

Senthil Kumar Vs The Union of India

Jothi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kasim @ Mohammed Kasim Vs the State Rep by

Kala@Janaki@Banumathi Vs the State Rep. by