O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]

(1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21.07.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the

Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3)Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the detenu was furnished with a Booklet without the translation of the Accident Register and Wound Certificate in the vernacular language and which documents were relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu's release on bail. The learned counsel also submitted that the detention order in respect of the co-detenu has been quashed by this Court on 03.11.2023 in HCP.No.1503/2023.

(4)It is seen that in pages No.61 to 63 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, the English version of the Accident Register and the Wound Certificate have not been translated in the vernacular language. This non furnishing of the vital document in vernacular language would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

(5)In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in

Paragraphs 9 and 16 as follows:

''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 illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''

(6)Thus, the detention order i