HCP.No.1534/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 23.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

H.C.P.No.1534/2023

Poomayil

..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition & Excise Department

Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police

O/o.The Commissioner of Police

Avaid, Chennai 600 054.

3.The Superintendent of Police

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police

E5 Sholavaram Police Station

Tiruvallur District.

.. Respondents

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP.No.1534/2023

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in

connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated

24.06.2023 in No.166/BCDFGISSSV/2023 against the petitioner's son

Sethupathi @ Sethu, M/A 28, son of Chellam, who is confined at Central

Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct

the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at

liberty.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.M.Anand

For Respondents

:

Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

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

24.06.2023 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.

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP.No.1534/2023

(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the

Detaining Authority suffers from non application of mind as paragraph

No.6 of the similar case bail order in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 in the English

version in the Booklet, differs in the vernacular version. It is stated that

there is an improper translation pertaining to the adverse cases.

(4)On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.91, it is seen that bail

order granted to the accused in a similar case is furnished and in

paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows:-''......The murder case pending

against the petitioner is of the year 2012 and another case is of the

year 2014...''. However, in the translated copy of the said bail order in

the vernacular version, it is stated as follows:-'',td; kPJ Vw;fdnt

bfhiy tHf;F kw;Wk; bfhiy Kaw;rp tHf;F cs;sJ//////''

Hence, it is seen that there is an improper translation of the similar case

bail order in the vernacular version.

(5)It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that serious prejudice is

caused to the detenu on account of improper translation in making

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP.No.1534/2023

effective representation against the Detention Order and that the

Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

(6)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