[S.15A SC/ST Act] Victim Need Not Be Put To Notice Of Habeas Corpus Plea Moved By Accused Following Preventive Detention: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has made it clear that the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a person who is accused of committing offences under the Schedules Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not a 'connected proceeding' for the purposes of Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the Act.The Sections make provision of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim for any Court proceeding connected to his/her case, including bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused.Court held that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy available under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and thus, would not be covered under “proceedings” under the SC/ST Act. Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel also observed that though sub-section 5 of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act talks about connected proceedings, such proceedings would mean conviction, acquittal or sentence and will not cover “connected proceedings”. “Habeas legal drill is qua a constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly Article 226(1) and therefore HCPs will not be covered by the expression 'proceedings under this Act' occurring in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15-A of SC/ST (PoA) Act. As regards sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of SC/ST (PoA) Act, it also talks about 'connected proceedings' but plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of SC/ST (PoA) Act is very clear that 'connected proceedings' pertains to (a)conviction, (b)acquittal and/or (c) sentence. Therefore HCPs will not come within the sweep of 'connected proceedings' expression deployed in sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of SC/ST (PoA) Act,” the court said. The court was seized with nine habeas corpus petitions challenging detentions made under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. Prosecution argued that the ground case for detention was registered for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act and thus, as per sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 15-A, the victim had to be put on notice. The petitioners on the other hand contended that the provisions use the expression “this Act” and since the detention was ordered under TN Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, the SC/ST Act was not applicable. While agreeing with the petitioner’s submission, the court noted that the TN Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act did not cover offences under the SC/ST Act and thus, the offences under the SC/ST Act did not come into play in the habeas corpus petitions. The court also noted that the habeas corpus petition against detention was a legal contestation between the detenu on one side and the State. The court added that the habeas corpus petition turned merely on technicalities and procedural fairness and did not involve a trial. Thus, the court opined that notice to victims under the SC/ST Act was not required. With respect to technicalities, the petitioners had argued that the grounds booklet which formed the basis of impugned preventive detention order and which was served on the detenus did not contain a correct translation of the remand extension order by the Special Court. The court noted that while the remand extension order said that the accused were produced through video conferencing, the Tamil translation merely said that the accused were produced which could mean that the accused were produced physically. Considering the literacy level of the detenus, the court opined that different versions of the legal document would baffle the detenus and impair their right to make an effective representation. Underlining that right to make effective representation was sacrosanct constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the court said that the preventive detention orders were impaired and deserved to be dislodged. “In the light of the narrative thus far, we have no hesitation in saying that captioned HCPs are such cases where there is breach of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. Therefore, the incorrect translation and two different versions of remand extension orders in English and Tamil have vitiated the impugned preventive detention orders for more than one reason and all nine impugned preventive detention orders deserve to be dislodged in this habeas legal drill,” the court ordered. The court thus allowed the habeas corpus petitions and set aside the preventive detention orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Paarthiban for Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 288Case Title: Vinothini v The Additional Chief Secretary to GovernmentCase No: H.C.P.Nos.491,546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553 and 1464 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

[S.15A SC/ST Act] Victim Need Not Be Put To Notice Of Habeas Corpus Plea Moved By Accused Following Preventive Detention: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags