V.Rajam v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

ORDER M.S.RAMESH

, J.

and

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, viz. Sujith, aged 27 years, S/o.Vincent, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.11.2024 slapped on 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].

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3.Though 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 Remand Report furnished to the detenu has not been fully translated. In this circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective representation.

4.On a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page No.34 of the booklet, a copy of the Remand Report is available and the fully translated copy of the same in vernacular version has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶5In 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: "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. .....

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."

¶6In 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.

¶7Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 27.11.2024 in No.1174/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Sujith, aged about 27 years, S/o.Vincent, presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]

17.07.2025 kas Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai

3.The Inspector of Police Valasarawakkam Police Station Valasarawakkam Chennai Disrict

4.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. kas

17.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.07.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN V.Rajam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai 3.The Inspector of Police Valasarawakkam Police Station Valasarawakkam Chennai Disrict 4.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the production of the records relating to the detention order dated 27.11.2024 made in detention order in No.1174/BCDFGISSSV/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz.Sujith, male, aged 27 years, son of Vincent, who has been detained in Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugabharathi For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor