Allowed

Banu @ Piyari Banu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC3 Jun 2024HCP(MD)/195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition, quashing a preventive detention order against Banu @ Piyari Banu. The Court held that the non-furnishing of a translated copy of a document relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the vernacular language vitiated the order. Citing Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court ruled that this deprived the detenu of the r

What did the court decide?

The Petition is allowed. The detention order in C.No.102/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2023 dated 15.11.2023 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Banu @ Piyari Banu Vs The Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶7

Banu @ Piyari Banu Now confined in Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai-9.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order in C.No.102/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2023, dated 15.11.2023 passed by the second respondent and set-aside the same by setting the detenu namely Banu @ Piyari Banu, wife of Akbar, aged about 41 years and set her at liberty, now detained at Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan

¶20

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 is the detenu viz., Banu alias Piyari Banu, Wife of Akbar, aged about 41 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.102/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2023, dated 15.11.2023 holding him to be a "Immoral Traffic Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(g) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶27

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.

¶28

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to 17 of the Booklet, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of her valuable right to make an effective representation.

¶29

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to 17 of the Booklet, 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 her 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.195 of 2024

¶33

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the

¶34

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:

¶35

''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.

¶36

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

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶40

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.

¶41

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.''

¶42

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

¶43

Page 5 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶46

document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.14 to 17 of the Booklet, in vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired her constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right 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 C.No.102/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2023, dated 15.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Banu alias Piyari Banu, aged about 41 years, wife of Akbar, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

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

¶49

03.06.2024

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶53

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

¶54

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶55

To:

¶56

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶57

Chennai-9.

¶58

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

¶60

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶61

Page 7 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶64

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶65

¶66

H.C.P.(MD) No.195 of 2024

¶67

03.06.2024

¶68

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

¶69

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

Banu @ Piyari Banu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banu @ Piyari Banu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

Jasteen Vs The Superintendent of Police

R.Ramalakshmi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Saraswathi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Muthu Kumar Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Kumar @ Pushpakumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Balakrishnan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government