Allowed¶47

Ganga v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Apr 2025HCP/147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu Raji @ Mottai Raji directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

Ganga Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention order set aside; detenu Raji @ Mottai Raji directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was not furnished with a proper translated copy of the memo of evidence, depriving him of the ability to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

¶27

Court's answer

The memo of evidence (page No.9 of Volume-II of the Booklet) is partially in Tamil and partially in English and its proper translated copy in the vernacular was not furnished to the detenu; this non-furnishing of a vital document deprives the detenu of making an effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((1999) 2 SCC 413) and in view of the aforesaid facts, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶42

Key takeaways

The detention order passed by the second respondent on 12.11.2024 in No.1125/BCDFGISSSV/2024 is set aside, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the detenu Raji @ Mottai Raji is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus (Article 226) - preventive detention branding the detenu a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - detention order No.1125/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai) challenged by the mother of the detenu Raji @ Mottai Raji (aged about 24) - memo of evidence (page No.9, Volume-II of the Booklet) partly in Tamil and partly in English, proper vernacular translation not furnished - non-furnishing of a vital document in the language understood by the detenu deprives him of effective representation, consistent with the Article 22(5) safeguards explained in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, relied on - detention order set aside; detenu set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. Coram: M.S. Ramesh, J. (author) and N. Senthilkumar, J.; decided 22.04.2025.

¶1

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

Ganga

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by its, 1.The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppery, Chennai-600 007.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 4.The Inspector of Police, R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai District. ... Respondents

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶17

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 order of detention dated 12.11.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent bearing No.1125/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same and produce the detenu Raji @ Mottai Raji, S/o.Murali, aged about 24 years, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J. )

¶21

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Raji @ Mottai Raji, aged about 24 years, S/o.Murali, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.11.2024 issued against her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

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

¶24

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶25

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶26

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶27

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 the detenu was not furnished with improper translated copy of the memo of evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶28

4. On a perusal of the Booklet particularly in page No.9 of Volume - II, it is seen that a copy of the memo of evidence is partially in Tamil and partially in English and its proper translated copy in vernacular language has not been furnished to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶29

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶30

Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

reported in

¶34

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶35

reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:

¶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 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,

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶40

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 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. ”

¶42

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶43

7 . Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 12.11.2024 in No.1125/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Raji @ Mottai

¶44

Page 5 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

H.C.P.No.147 of 2025

¶47

Raji, aged about 24 years, S/o.Murali, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other

¶48

case.

¶49

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]