Failure to provide a translated copy of a crucial document in a language known to the detenu impairs the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in C.M.P.No.80/Goonda/Salem City/2022 dated 27.07.2022 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Thiru.Karthick, aged 37 years son of Balakrishnan now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 27.07.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.80/Goonda/Salem City/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as 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 one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.293 of 2022 on the file of Annadanapatty Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397, 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.Sengkodi, learned counsel representing counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John 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 in his challenge against 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 40 of the booklet which is the arrest intimation form. No Tamil translation of this form has been furnished to the detenu. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that the arrest intimation form forms part of the ground on which the impugned detention order has been made.

6. As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.

7. Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 5th standard in school and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The question which Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court addressed itself to in a similar fact situation has been captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question has been captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Pownammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows:

''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

16. For the above reasons, in our view, t