Allowed

Sivasuriyan v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Jun 2024HCP(MD)/168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus against a goonda preventive detention order. The court held detention vitiated because the detenu was not furnished a vernacular translation of the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority, depriving him of his right to make an effective representation, and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order H.S.(M) Confdl.No.164/2023 dated 30.11.2023 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Sivasuriyan Vs The Additional Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

Sivasuriyan

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶11

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Thoothukudi District Thoothukudi

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison Palayamkottai Central Prison Tirunelveli District ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in H.S. (M) Confdl.No.164/2023, dated 30.11.2023, on the file of the second

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

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

¶16

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶17

respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce

¶18

the body of the petitioner, namely, Sivasuriyan, son of Sekar, aged about 26

¶19

years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶23

The petitioner, by name, Sivasuriyan, son of Sekar, aged 26 years, is the detenue. He has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.164/2023, dated 30.11.2023, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶24

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶28

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on remand extension order, which is available at Page No.157 of the typed set of papers and it is in English language. Though the petitioner asked for translated copy of the same in the vernacular language, the same has not been furnished by the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

¶29

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated copy of the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.157 of the typed set of papers, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the said document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶33

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶34

''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

¶35

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

¶36

Page 4 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶39

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.

¶40

16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply 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.''

¶41

6. We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated copy of the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No. 157 of the typed set of papers, in vernacular language, to the detenu, has

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD) No.168 of 2024

¶45

impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right

¶46

is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

¶47

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.164/2023, dated 30.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sivasuriyan, son of Sekar, aged 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]

¶49

06.06.2024

¶50

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶51

krk

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

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