Allowed

Thangapriya v. The Principal Secretary to Governmet

Madras HC24 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the detaining authority's failure to supply a translated copy of the remand extension order to the detenu impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation. Consequently, the detention order under the Goondas Act was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith.

Thangapriya Vs The Principal Secretary to Governmet — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

Thangapriya

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State of rep by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Velu Nachiyar Valagam Dingidul District

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Madurai ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records from the second respondent in

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶19

Detention order No.31 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the second respondent and setting the detenue, Suttu Suresh @ Suresh aged 35 , SS/o. Sivaperumal at liberty now detained in the Central prison, Madurai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the wife of the detenue namely, Suttu Suresh @ Suresh S/o. Sivaperumal, aged about 35 years . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order No.31 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶27

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the detenue with the translated copy of the remand extension order dated 10.04.2024. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶28

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record of the booklet, it is clear that the detenue was not furnished with the translated copy of the remand extension order dated 10.04.2024 Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶29

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

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶33

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

''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

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

in a different language.

¶38

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶39

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.''

¶40

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the translated copy of the remand extension order dated 10.04.2024 was not furnished to the detenue. This non furnishing of translated version of remand extension order 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

Page 5 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024

¶44

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention order No.31 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suttu Suresh @ Suresh S/o. Sivaperumal, aged about 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶45

[C.V.K., J.] & [R.P., J.]

¶46

24.10.2024

¶47

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

¶48

Page 6 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

H.C.P.(MD) No.573 of 2024