Failure to provide legible documents for preventive detention violates the right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA H.C.P(MD)No.1289 of 2024 K.Parveensingh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli City.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in detention order No. 55/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 07.09.2024 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Bharathsingh, aged about 45 years, S/o.Premsingh, who is now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner is the son of the detenu viz., Bharathsingh, aged about 45 years, S/o.Premsingh. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated

07.09.2024 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 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 ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the Accused checking register relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.91, 95 & 97 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.91, 95 and 97 of the Booklet, which is the Accused checking register furnished to the detenu, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document 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 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:

''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