Allowed

I.Mary v. The Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC17 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detensation Act. The detention was illegal because the detaining authority failed to provide the detenue with legible copies of the remand extension order, infringing his constitutional right to making an effective representation under Article 22(5), following Powanammal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 21.03.2024 is set aside. The detenue Soosairaj is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

I.Mary Vs The Chief Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2024

¶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.591 of 2024

¶9

I. Mary ... Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶12

Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police Tiruchirapalli District Tiruchirapalli

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli

¶15

The Inspector of Police Palakarai Police Station, Tiruchirapalli City ... Respondents

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶17

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

¶18

PRAYER:

¶19

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024 in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Soosairaj, S/o. Innasi, Male aged about 34 years who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, Soosairaj, S/o. Innasi, aged about 34 years . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024, 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

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 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

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 legible copies of the remand extension order more specifically at page No.61. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶29

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 furnished with the illegible copies of the remand extension order Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶33

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

''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

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶38

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.

¶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

¶41

force to the case on hand as we find that the legible copies of the remand extension order was not furnished to the detenue. This non furnishing of legible copies 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

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶45

safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore,

¶46

have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

¶47

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.25/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 21.03.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Soosairaj, S/o. Innasi, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

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

¶49

17.10.2024

¶50

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

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶52

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

¶53

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶54

To:

¶55

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

¶56

2.The Commissioner of Police Tiruchirapalli District Tiruchirapalli

¶57

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli

¶58

The Inspector of Police Palakarai Police Station, Tiruchirapalli City

¶59

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

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

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

¶62

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶63

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶64

aav

¶65

H.C.P.(MD) No.591 of 2024

¶66

17.10.2024

¶67

Page 8 of 8

¶68

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

I.Mary v. The Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Mary v. The Chief 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

K.Mariappan Vs the State Rep by

Kumar @ Soni Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Renuka Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

Maideen Bath Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

V.Sathiya Sumathi, Vs Government of Tamilnadu

M.Fathima Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu