POWANAMMAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 15-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
POWANAMMAL 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
JANUARY 15, 1999 
B 
[K. T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.) 
Climinal Law : 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drng-
C Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic-Offenders and 
Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 : Section 3. 
Preventive Detention-Grounds of--Commwzication of-Language of 
--Documents-Supply of-Detention order was se1ved on the detenue on the 
day when she was in judicial remand in a case filed under Ss.4(l)(i) and 
D 4( 1-A) of the T.N. Prohibition Act-Detention challenged on ground that 
detenue was denied the light to make effective representation as order of 
remand to judicial custody relied upon in the grounds of detention was passed 
in English but Tamil version of that document was not supplied to her even 
though she specifically demanded the same as she did not know 
English-Held: Copies of the documents relied on in the grounds of detention 
E must be supplied to the detenue in a language understood by him-However, 
in the case of non-supply of a document which merely finds a reference in 
the order of detention the detenue must show prejudice caused to him while 
challenging the detention orde1~In the circumstances of the case, non-supply 
of the Tamil version of the order of remand renders the continued detention 
of the detenue illegal-Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, Ss.4(1)(i) and 
F 4(1-A). 
Appellant's mother was in judicial remand in connection with a case 
filed under sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 
1937 when the detention order was served on her under Section 3 of the 
G Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Of-
fenders, Forest- Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic-Offenders and 
Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982. The detenue filed a writ petition before the High 
·f 
Court challenging her detention, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the detenue was 
H denied the right to make effective representation as 1Jrder of remand to 
104 
POWANAMMALv. STATE 
105 
judicial custody relied upon in the grounds of detention was passed in A 
English but the Tamil version of the document was not supplied to the 
detenue even though she specifically demanded the same as she did not 
know English at all and, therefore, prejudice was caused to the detenue. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since the grounds. 
of detention and the said document were translated and explained in Tamil B 
to the detenue, no prejudice was caused to her in making· an effective 
representation due to not supply of the Tamil version of the remand order. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
c 
(Per Quadri, J. for himself and Thomas, J.) 
, HELD : 1.1. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) 
extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the 
material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenue but 
...i,. 
also to supplying their translation in script or language which is under-
D 
standable to the detenue. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the 
· right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the oppor-
tunity of making a representation against the order. [108-G-H; 109-A] 
Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, [1969] 1 SCR 227, E 
relied on. 
1.2. However, there is a distinction between a document, which has 
been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention, 
and a document whicl) finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. 
Whereas non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds 
F 
of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenue 
need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because 
non-supply of such a document would am1mnt 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 G 
so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention 
or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenue's complaint of 
non-supply of the document has to be supported by prejudice caused to 
him in making effective representation. What applies to a document, would 
equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A language known to and understood by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.