Failure to furnish crucial documents in a language known to the detenu impairs the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the continued 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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.64/2022 dated 30.12.2022 against the petitioner''s husband by name Thiru.Magendiran, S/o.Sekar, aged about 38 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 01.03.2023, this Court made the following order:

''Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition (for brevity, ''HCP'') has been filed in this Court on 22.02.2023 inter-alia assailing a detention order dated 30.12.2022 bearing Reference Number in C.3/D.O.No.64/2022 made by the ''second respondent'' (hereinafter called as ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity). To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner.

3. Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner, is before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground case qua the detenu, is for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, ''IPC'') in Crime No.194 of 2022 on the file of the Alangayam Police Station, Thirupathur District, which was subsequently altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 read with 109 IPC.

4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of 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 called as Act 14 of 1982 for the sake of convenience and clarity).

5. The detention order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the book-let supplied to the detenu found at Page Nos.13, 58, 59 and 201 are containing English version, but no vernacular version/known language of the detenu has been furnished.

6. Prima-facie case made out for admission of the HCP. Accordingly, Admit, Issue Rule Nisi, Call for records, returnable in four weeks.

7. Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Madras, accepts notice for all the respondents.

8. List the captioned HCP accordingly.''

2. The aforementioned order made in the 01.03.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.

3. There are four adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.194 of 2022 on the file of Alangayam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC, subsequently altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 r/w 109 of IPC . 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.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. In the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, several grounds have been raised/urged but in the final hearing today, learned counsel for petitioner projected his argument in his challenge