Allowed

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Non-furnishing of vital documents – the remand order and remand extension order

Madras HC21 Mar 2024HCP/501/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition challenged a goonda detention order on the ground that the detenu was not supplied the remand and remand extension orders, depriving him of an effective representation. Relying on Pawanammal, the Court held the detention vitiated, quashed the detention order and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 14.11.2023 set aside; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶9

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶16

The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶21

Prayer

¶22

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.51/Goonda/2023 dated 14.11.2023 against A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy, M/A-23 years, son of Arumugam, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore detaining him as a Goonda and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner namely, Moorthy alias Thirumoorthy, aged 23 years, Son of Arumugam, who is the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.11.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶31

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶32

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 sole ground that the detenu was not furnished with the Remand order and Remand Extension order. It is, therefore, submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the detenu had been deprived of his valuable right of making an effective representation as against the impugned order of detention.

¶33

It is seen from the Booklet furnished to the detenu that he has not been furnished with the Remand order and Remand extension order. This non furnishing of the vital documents would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶34

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

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶38

(1999) 2 SCC 413 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. 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 follows:

¶39

“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

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶43

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 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.

¶44

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. ”

¶45

6.Thus, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

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

¶48

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶49

furnishing of the vital document in the vernacular language and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the

¶51

2^nd respondent dated 14.11.2023 in Cr.M.P. No.51/Goonda/2023 , is hereby

¶52

set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Moorthy alias Thirumoorthy, aged 23 years, Son of Arumugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶53

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 21.03.2024

¶54

bga

¶55

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶56

Page 6 of 8

¶57

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

¶58

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶59

¶60

State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶61

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶62

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶63

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶64

The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶65

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶66

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

¶67

Page 7 of 8

¶68

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

¶69

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶70

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

¶71

bga

¶72

H.C.P.No.501 of 2024

¶73

21.03.2024

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

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

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu 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

Priya Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Suryaraj Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by

R.Durgashankar Vs the Deputy Director

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

High Court Vs P.Dharmaraj

Muthu Selvam Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons