AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Lokesh, son of Mari, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.170/TNPD/APC/2026, dated 18.06.2026, holding him to be a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
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.
Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition for quashing the impugned detention order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner focused his arguments mainly on the ground that the detenu was furnished with an illegible copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.4 & 5 of the booklet and Page 2 of 6 that, though the petitioner made a representation seeking a clear copy of the relevant document, the same was not furnished to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation and on this sole ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that the document available at Page Nos.4 & 5 of the booklet is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
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 fatal. 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 Page 3 of 6 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.''
We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies on all fours to the case on hand, as we find that non-furnishing of legible copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.4 & 5 of the booklet vitiates the order of detention and that, this furnishing of illegible copy, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order. Page 4 of 6
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the order of detention No.170/TNPD/APC/2026 dated 18.06.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Lokesh, son of Mari, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.