Allowed¶47

Keerthika v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Mar 2025HCP/2086/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court H.C.P.No.2086 of 2024 (decided 14.03.2025) — preventive detention; 'Goonda'; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act; remand extension order; English entries not translated in vernacular; denial of effective representation; Article 22(5) safeguards; Article 226 writ of habeas corpus; Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 2 SCC 413 relied on; detention order C.O.C. NO. 32/2024 dated 31.07.2024 quashed/set aside; detenu Arunkumar @ Arun ordered released unless required in another case.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 31.07.2024 in C.O.C. NO. 32/2024 set aside; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detenu Arunkumar @ Arun, S/o. Ravi, confined in central prison Thiruchirappalli, directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

Keerthika Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure to translate the English entries in the remand extension order into the vernacular language deprived the detenu of the opportunity to make an effective representation, rendering the detention order liable to be quashed.

¶32

Court's answer

On perusal of Page No.45 in Volume-I of the booklet, this Court found that a copy of the remand extension order was available in which the entries in English had not been translated in vernacular version.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Since the entries in English in the remand extension order were not translated into the vernacular, the detenue was deprived of making an effective representation, and the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶35

Key takeaways

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 the facts aforesaid, this Court held that the detention order is liable to be quashed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus — Preventive detention 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] — Detenu branded 'Goonda'; detention order dated 31.07.2024 in C.O.C. NO. 32/2024 passed by the second respondent (District Collector And Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai) — Sole ground pressed: the English entries in the remand extension order (Page No.45, Volume-I of the booklet) had not been translated into the vernacular, depriving the detenu of an effective representation — Reliance placed on Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Supreme Court held, in the context of Article 22[5] safeguards, that supply of material relied upon in the grounds of detention in a language known to and understood by the detenu is imperative — Held, following the said ratio, that the non-translation deprived the detenu of making an effective representation and the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated — Detention order set aside; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detenu Arunkumar @ Arun directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.2086 of 2024

¶7

KEERTHIKA

¶8

... Petitioner/ wife of the detenue

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009

¶11

2.The District Collector And Magistrate Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District

¶12

3.The Superintendent Of Police Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladithurai District

¶13

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli,

¶14

5.The Inspector Of Police Sirkazhi Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER:

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention dated 31.07.2024 in detention order C.O.C. NO. 32/2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband viz., Arunkumar @ Arun, S/o. Ravi, Hindu, aged about 33 years, confined in central prison Thiruchirappalli before this court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner

¶21

: Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan

¶22

For Respondents

¶23

: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public proseuctor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶24

ORDER

¶25

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Arunkumar @ Arun, S/o. Ravi, Hindu, aged about 33 years, confined in central prison Thiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.07.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the

¶27

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶29

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].

¶30

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

¶31

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶32

3. 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 English entries in the remand extension order has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶33

4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page No.45 in Volume-I of the booklet, this Court finds that a copy of the remand extension order is available, in which the entries in English has not been translated in vernacular version. Therefore, the detenue is Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶35

deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶36

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

¶37

“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

¶38

Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶40

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.

¶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

Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by

¶47

the second respondent on 31.07.2024 in C.O.C. NO. 32/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arunkumar @ Arun, S/o. Ravi, Hindu, aged about 33 years, confined in central prison Thiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 14.03.2025

¶49

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

¶50

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

HCP.No.2086 of 2024

¶52

¶53

1.The Secretary, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009

¶54