Allowed

Kaliyammal v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/527/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of preventive detention under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The High Court quashed the order and directed the release of the detenu, ruling that the reliance on an improperly translated document violated Article 22(5) and the right to make an effective representation, citing Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order M.H.S Confdl No. 25/2024 dated 10.04.2024 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Kaliyammal Vs The Principal Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.527 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.527 of 2024

Kaliyammal

... Petitioner

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

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶12

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

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, connected with the Detention order of the respondent no.2 M.H.S Confdl No. 25/2024, dated 10.04.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Karthick, S/o. Krishnasamy aged 25 years, now detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set

¶15

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

¶16

1/7

¶17

H.C.P(MD)No.527 of 2024

¶18

him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Vinoth Bharathi

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi

¶21

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Karthick, S/o. Krishnasamy aged 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order in M.H.S Confdl No. 25/2024, dated 10.04.2024 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

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

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 in the English version of the remand order (Page No.73), it is stated that “...The Accused is remanded to J.C. till

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P(MD)No.527 of 2024

¶29

12.04.2024', however, in the Tamil version, which is at Page No.75 it is improperly translated as A1 to A3 were remanded till 12.04.2024. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶30

On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the remand order has been improperly translated in vernacular language. This would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶31

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:

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

H.C.P(MD)No.527 of 2024

¶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 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.

¶36

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

¶37

4/7

¶38

H.C.P(MD)No.527 of 2024

¶39

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.''

¶40

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand. The furnishing of improper translated copy to the detenu, has impaired his 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.

¶41