Wife challenged her husband's preventive detention as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found pages 120 to 137 of the booklet were not properly translated into Tamil, depriving the detenu of his right to make an effective representation, and quashed the detention order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HCP.No.349 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.349 of 2024
Amutha
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 3.The Inspector of Police, Team-33, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention order made in BCDFGISSSV.No.60/2024 dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set the detenue Thiru.Ramu, S/o.Karuppannan aged 46 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai at liberty.
For Petitioner
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Ramu, aged about 46 years, S/o. Karuppannan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.01.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 page nos.120 to 137 in the booklet has not been properly translated in Tamil. Further, the detenu has passed only 10th standard and therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, particularly in page Nos.120 to 137, this Court finds that the contents therein have not been properly 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 Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable
Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
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.
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:
“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
Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
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 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.
..... 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. ”
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
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 24.01.2024 in No.60/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ramu , aged about 46 years, S/o. Karuppannan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 25.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
To
1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, Team-33, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.349 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
H.C.P.No.349 of 2024
25.06.2024
Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order is vitiated by failure to properly translate vital documents relied on by the detaining authority into Tamil.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶5
'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413' · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Amutha
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
The Inspector of Police, Team-33, Forgery Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
M.S. RAMESH
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
