Allowed

V.Balakrishnan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC3 Jun 2024HCP(MD)/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father's habeas corpus petition against son's preventive detention as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Accident Register at page 239 of the booklet was not properly translated into Tamil. Relying on Pownammal, the court held this impaired the detenu's right to make effective representation and quashed the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 09.11.2023 set aside; detenu Ramar directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

V.Balakrishnan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 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

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

V.Balakrishnan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

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

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 09.11.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Ramar, aged about 22 years, S/o.Balakrishnan, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Ramar, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 09.11.2023 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

¶28

of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶29

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶30

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶31

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 ground that copy of the Accident Register, which is available at Page No.239 of the bookelt, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶32

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.239 of the Booklet, which is the Accident Register, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. This improper translation of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶33

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

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶35

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

¶36

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

¶37

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:

¶38

''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 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

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

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

¶41

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

¶42

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.

¶43

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.''

¶44

6. We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that improper translation of the Accident Register made by the authority concerned, which is available at Page No.239, in the vernacular language. This furnishing improper translation in the vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

H.C.P.(MD) No.203 of 2024

¶48

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.

¶49

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 09.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ramar, aged about 22 years, son of Balakrishnan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

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

¶51

03.06.2024

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶55

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

¶56