Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1982 (MAD)

J. Maheswari v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-04-07

M.S.RAMESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N. SENTHILKUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Sakthi Shanmugam S/o Gopinath, aged about 21 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.12.2024 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]. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 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 that the delegation of power on the detaining authority has not been translated in Tamil version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation. 4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.1 and 2 of Volume-II of the booklet, this Court finds that the Government had conferred powers on the detaining authority under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act vide G.O.(D) No.274, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024, and the same has not been translated in Tamil version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated. 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, (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. 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.” 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. 7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 31.12.2024 in D.No.C2/73/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeyaraj, S/o.Pichan, aged about 38 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.