The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to provide the correct translation of crucial documents in the detenu's known language impairs their constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner''s brother''s detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 01.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.48/G/IS/2022 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the petitioner''s brother namely M.Suryaprakash, S/o.Mahendran, aged 23 years, before this Court and set him at liberty from detention, now the petitioner''s brother detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by sister of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 01.08.2022 bearing reference C.No.48/G/IS/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 are three adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.315 of 2022 on the file of B-2 R.S.Puram Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 307 and 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.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel 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 several grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioner in the arguments at the time of hearing pivoted his campaign against the impugned detention order on one point and that one point turns on incorrect/improper translation. Learned counsel adverting to pages 154 and 155 of the booklet submits that the remand order dated 20.07.2022 has not been correctly translated while the remand order in English by the learned Magistrate says it is 15 days from 20.07.2022, Tamil translation says it is 15 days from 20.02.2021. 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. In this regard, we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is only 7th standard in school and that he is a school drop out. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Honourable 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 Honourable 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 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