Janaki Jayapal Vs the State Rep by

1.State rep. by The Additonal Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department. Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Commissioner Office Building, Vepery, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶12

4.Inspector of Police, V5 – Thirumangalam Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai – 600 101. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6

¶15

H.C.P.No.1563 of 2024

¶16

issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo Ref. C.No.279/BCDFGISSSV/2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, quash the order of detention dated 01.04.2024 and direct the production of the detenu detained in Central Prison – Puzhal under the Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and set the detenu namely Jayapal @ Othakannu Jayapal , Male, S/o.Ramasamy, aged about 63 years, No.135/A, K.B Nagar, Masoor Road, Arakkonam Tower & Taluk, Vellore District at liberty.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner herein, who is the daughter of the detenu namely Jayapal

¶21

@ Othakannu Jayapa l, aged about 63 years, S/o.Ramasamy, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 01.04.2024 slapped on her father, 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

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

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6

¶24

H.C.P.No.1563 of 2024

¶25

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶26

3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with improper translated copy of the accident register. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶27

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the accident register has been improperly translated in vernacular language. This furnishing of improper translated copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶28

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6

¶29

H.C.P.No.1563 of 2024

¶30

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:

¶31

“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 nonsupply 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.

¶32

..... 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. ”

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6

¶34

H.C.P.No.1563 of 2024

¶35

6

¶36

6 . In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in

¶37

view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶38

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on

¶39

01.04.2024 in No.279/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jayapal @ Othakannu Jayapal, aged about 63 years, S/o.Ramasamy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶40

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 14.02.2025

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

Sni

¶43