M.Mangaiyarkarasi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in Detention Order passed in P.D.No.39/2024, dated 12.09.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Praveen, S/o.Murugesan, male, aged 20 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

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

¶16

1/7

¶17

H.C.P(MD)No.1245 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

¶19

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Praveen, S/o.Murugesan, aged 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by Detention Order in P.D.No.39/2024, dated 12.09.2024 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.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶23

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

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 instead of furnishing the translated copy of G.O.(D)No.211, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

H.C.P(MD)No.1245 of 2024

¶28

12.07.2024 in vernacular language, some other Government Order had been furnished to the detenu at Page Nos.10 and 11 of the Booklet Volume-II. In connection with the same, a specific representation was given seeking correct translated version of the Government Order relied on by the second respondent in the detention order. Inspite of receipt of the representation, the correct copy of the Government Order has not been furnished to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶29

On a perusal of records, it is seen that the Government Order furnished in the vernacular language is different from the one relied on by the second respondent while passing the Detention Order.

¶30

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

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P(MD)No.1245 of 2024

¶34

can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of

¶35

the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶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, 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.

¶37

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.''

¶38

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

¶39

4/7

¶40

H.C.P(MD)No.1245 of 2024

¶41

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand. The furnishing of improper translated copy 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.

¶42

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order in P.D.No.39/2024, dated 12.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Praveen, S/o.Murugesan, aged 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶43

(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.) 02.09.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶44

mbi

¶45

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

¶46

5/7

¶47

H.C.P(MD)No.1245 of 2024

¶48

To