Failure to provide a crucial document in the language known to the detenu rendered the impugned detention order illegal, leading to its setting aside.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the detenu namely, Parameshwaran, son of Murugan, aged about 23 years who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith by calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 28.08.2022 made in D.O.No.C2/42/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same as illegal.)

M. Sundar, J.,

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 28.08.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/42/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.237 of 2022 on the file of Chinnasalem Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 353, 436, 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.S.Anbazhagan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.

5. Though very many grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing projected his argument qua challenge to the impugned detention order on one point and that point is not providing translated copy of a document (relied on by the detaining authority) in a language which the detenu is conversant with. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.97 of the booklet which is the similar case bail order. No Tamil translation of this order has been furnished to the detenu. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that the similar case bail order forms part of the ground on which the impugned detention order has been made. As this turns on obtaining scenario which comes to light from the booklet which is before us, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.

6. Be that as it may, we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 6th standard in school and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. In this regard, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.68 (confession statement) of the booklet which reads as follows:

“TAMIL”

7. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon''ble Supreme Court addressed itself to is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Hon''ble Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC j