Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kamatchi, mother of the detenu Prakash, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai (second respondent) in proceedings No.1132/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 18.11.2024. The detenu, Prakash, aged 24 years, was confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. The petitioner contended that the Remand Extension Order dated 15.11.2024, which was a vital document relied upon by the detaining authority, was improperly translated into Tamil, the language understood by the detenu. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Vasudevan, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, for the respondents. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, which held that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the detention order and that failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu is imperative. The Supreme Court distinguished between a document relied upon and a document merely referred to; non-supply of a relied-upon document is fatal to continued detention without showing prejudice. The court found that the Remand Extension Order dated 15.11.2024 was improperly translated, thereby violating the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation. Consequently, the court allowed the habeas corpus petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Improper Translation of Vital Document - The detenu was supplied a Remand Extension Order dated 15.11.2024 which was improperly translated into Tamil, the language understood by the detenu. The court held that failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu is imperative and amounts to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order. The detention order was quashed. (Paras 3-5) B) Preventive Detention - Non-Supply of Relied-Upon Document - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Fatal to Continued Detention - Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, the court observed that non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, and the detenu need not show prejudice. The improper translation of the Remand Extension Order, which was a vital document relied upon by the detaining authority, vitiated the detention order. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the improper translation of the Remand Extension Order dated 15.11.2024 vitiates the detention order and violates the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the habeas corpus petition, quashed the detention order in proceedings No.1132/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 18.11.2024, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Improper translation of vital document violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution
- right to make effective representation
- non-supply of relied-upon document in understandable language is fatal to detention
