The failure to provide translated documents to a detenu violates constitutional rights and vitiates a detention order, impacting the right to make an effective representation.

ORDER :

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Raja @ Rajadurai, son of Murugesan, aged about 39 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M)Confdl.No. 116/2024 dated 07.08.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of TAMIL NADU ACT 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.93 to 97 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.93 to 97 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of translated copy of the said documents in the vernacular language would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 , wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

''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.

...

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 il