IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.919 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Smt.Jyothi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009. ... Respondents * * * Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpu, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with Memo.No.144/2008, dated 11.6.2008 and quash the same and to produce the detenu, Mohan @ Mohan Reddy, aged 43, son of Subba Reddy, who is now detained at Central Prison, Chennai under Act 14/82, before this Court and set him at liberty. * * * For petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarathinam For respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango, APP * * * O R D E R
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Mohan @ Mohan Reddy, who is detained as an ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. It is alleged that the detenu is an habitual offender under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and already four cases are pending against him for acting as a pimp. It is alleged that the detenu, under the guise of getting cinema chances, brought girls from neighboring States through his associates and thereafter induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and also took out a house at No.41, F2 Apartment, I Main Road, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai for rent and earned huge money.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the detenu knows only Telugu to read and write and in spite of the said fact, the order of detention, grounds of detention and other documents were not supplied in Telugu to the detenu and thus the non-communication of the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu would vitiate the detention order. It is also submitted that on behalf of the detenu, his wife/the petitioner sent a telegram on 25.6.2008 seeking for the Telugu translated version of the documents since the detenu does not know Tamil or English and till now, the Telugu translated documents are not supplied. It is also submitted that in the alleged confession statement, even though it is out of context, it has been mentioned as if the detenu knows Tamil to read and write and that this line was written subsequently by some one else other than the Inspector of Police, AVS, in a different ink, which would show that the documents are manipulated in order to nullify Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
4. The first respondent would file a counter affidavit, denying all the allegations of the petition. It is submitted on their behalf of that the detenu, in his confession statement dated 27.5.2008, has stated that he is residing in Chennai from the year 1985, which was also given by him in Tamil language; that the detenu is also facing a case in Crime No.235/2003 and the final report in the said case was filed on 5.7.2004 before the Court of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and all the documents in the said case are only in Tamil and the detenu is effectively defending himself before the trial Court till date and he has not raised any objection before the learned Magistrate nor sought for copies in Telugu language, which fact alone will establish that the detenu is raising the plea of not knowing Tamil language only for the purpose of this petition. Regarding the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents have inserted in the confession statement as if the detenu knows Tamil to read and write, the respondents would submit that the genuineness of the document is not the subject matter of the detention and the same cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavit and the genuineness or otherwise of the document can only be established through admissible evidence before the trial Court. It has also been submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 26.6.2008 seeking documents in Telugu, addressed to the second respondent, was duly disposed of by a rejection order dated 11.7.2008.
5. The petitioner would also file a petition, raising additional grounds, and her main attack to the impugned detention order is that the detenu does not know to write and read Tamil and since the documents relied on were not supplied to the detenu in the language known to him i.e. in Telugu, the order of detention is vitiated.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly argue that since the detenu is not familiar with the Tamil language, he requested the respondents to supply the documents in Telugu and in spite of the same, the respondents have not furnished him the documents in Telugu, which is the language known to the detenu and hence the order of detention is vitiated. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in HARIKISAN vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [AIR 1962 SC 911]. In the said judgment, it has been held:
“In the case of a person detained by an order made under S.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, communication of the grounds of detention in English, so long as it continues to be the official language of the State, is not necessarily enough compliance with the requirements of Art.22(5) of the Constitution. If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravemen of the charge against him and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on another Constitution Bench judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in HADIBANDHU DAS vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK AND ANOTHER [AIR 1969 SC 43], wherein also it has been held:
“…. Mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation in script and language which he understood would in our judgment, amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order….”
8. The other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the one delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in NAINMAL PERTAP MAL SHAH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1980 SC 2129], wherein, following the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Hadibandhu Das case (cited supra), it has been held:
“Where the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were in English which the detenu under the provisions of COFEPOSA did not know or understand, and no translated copies either in the regional language or at least in Hindi was supplied to him, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Art.22(5) of the Constitution.”
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on another judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1981 SC 728], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
“Art.22(5) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of detention must be “communicated” to the detenu. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the ‘grounds’ should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the ‘ground’ to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the ‘grounds’ are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed.”
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on another judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in SURJEET SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1981 SC 1153], wherein it has been held:
“Where the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenus in the English language a language with which they were not conversant, the service of the grounds on them in that manner could not be considered under the circumstances to be effective communication to them thereof so as to afford to them a real opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Consequently, the detention must be considered to be illegal.”
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the contention of the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu’s wife was informed through telegram is not true and non-intimation of the arrest of the detenu to the next friend or relative vitiates the detention order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in Mrs.SEEMATTI vs. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF T.N., HOME DEPT. AND OTHERS [2005 CRI.L.J.738], wherein, when the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to the wife of the detenu and she was formally intimated two days after arrest of detenu through telegram, a Division Bench of this Court has held that such ‘process adopted and followed by authorities is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court decision in D.K.BASU vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [AIR 1997 SC 610].’
12. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid down in the above cited judgments. But, we must see whether the propositions laid down in the above cited judgments are in any way helpful to the case of the petitioner.
13. The main thrust of the petitioner is that the detenu does not know to read and write Tamil and hence the relied upon documents must have been supplied to the detenu in the language known to him i.e. Telugu. But, however, the strong assertion of the respondents that the detenu is a resident of Chennai from the year 1985 is not denied on the part of the petitioner. While such being the position, being a resident of Chennai for the last 23 long years, it cannot be said that the detenu has no acquaintance with the vernacular language viz. Tamil. This is further supported or fortified by the reason that the detenu is already facing a case in Cr.No.235 of 2003 before the Court of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai wherein all the material documents are said to have filed only in Tamil and there is no request on behalf of the detenu before the said Magistrate or before any other authority requesting to furnish him the documents in that case in Telugu. Therefore, in view of the undisputed fact that the detenu is a resident of Chennai for the last 23 long years and that he never requested the Magistrate or any other authority concerned to supply him the documents in Telugu, a legal presumption would arise that the detenu is well aware of the language of the land viz. Tamil and this plea has been raised only for the purpose of this case.
14. An adding factor which we want to point out is that though in the affidavit filed before this Court along with this petition, the petitioner has signed in English, in the subsequent affidavit filed in M.P.No.1 of 2008, requesting to permit her to raise additional grounds, she has signed in Telugu, apparently to give an impression that she too knows only Telugu. This further fortifies our view that the plea of non-acquaintance with the language of this part of the globe has been invented by the petitioner only for the purpose of the case. Therefore, we are satisfied that the respondents have rightly rejected the request of the detenu for supplying the copies in Telugu, since it is apparent that the detenu has got acquaintance with Tamil and is also defending a case before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in which case also, the documents are in Tamil, without there being any request on his behalf for supply of documents in Telugu. Hence, in view of the above factual aspect of the case, it is to be held that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding supply of documents in the language known to the detenu have no application to the case on hand.
15. Then coming to the other contention of the petitioner that in the alleged confession statement, new words have been introduced by somebody as if the detenu knows to read and write Tamil, it is a point to be gone into during trial of the case and this Court, sitting under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into such factual aspects. Even regarding the other allegation of the petitioner that no intimation was given to her by the respondents regarding the arrest of her husband, we are unable to appreciate the same in view of the materials available before us in the form of booklet substantiating the plea of the respondents that the petitioner was informed about the arrest of her husband immediately. Therefore, even the other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding intimation to the close friend/relative have no application to the facts of the case on hand.
16. Very serious allegations of inducing and forcing the innocent women to the flesh trade, under the guise of getting them cinema chances, have been made against the detenu. The statements of some of the victims are also recorded and submitted before us. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, prima facie, there are reasons for the respondents to detain the detenu under Act 14/82 since being affecting the maintenance of public order in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
17. Time and again it has been held by the upper forums of law, in different words and phrases, that a social responsibility is cast on the Courts also to protect the Society from the clutches of the unwanted elements and interfering with the orders of detention of such elements merely on pure technical grounds, closing the eyes to the factual situation, will defeat the very purpose of the Act, which should be avoided. At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that in the case on hand, the respondents have got sufficient reasons and materials to arrive at the conclusion of detaining the detenu.
For all the above discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the order of detention passed against the husband of the detenu. Therefore, this HCP is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No (E.D.R., J.) (S.T., J.) Rao 15.10.2008 To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009. ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. AND S.TAMILVANAN, J. (Rao) Pre-delivery Order in H.C.P.No.919 of 2008 15.10.2008