APHC010392962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 21498/2025 Between: 1. TALAVARISA SUMATHY, W/O YESU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D. NO.33-3-32/1, YADIA LINGAIAH COLONY, TENALI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDEN RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4 respondent to produce Talavarasa Vijaya Babu, who is now detained in Central Prison Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District before this IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21498/2025 TALAVARISA SUMATHY, W/O YESU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D. 32/1, YADIA LINGAIAH COLONY, TENALI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522202. ...PETITIONER AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4 respondent to produce Talavarasa Vijaya Babu, who is now detained in Central Prison Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District before this Honble Court and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA TALAVARISA SUMATHY, W/O YESU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D. 32/1, YADIA LINGAIAH COLONY, TENALI, NELAPADU, ...PETITIONER OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. T, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. T, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4 respondent to produce Talavarasa Vijaya Babu, who is now detained in Central Prison Honble Court and 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention File.No.REVGNT-CSECOPDL (MISE)/1/2025-SA (CI)-COLGNT (Computer No 407970) dt. 20.03.2025, passed by the 2ND respondent which was confirmed by the 1ST respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 830, dt.01-05-2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept, as illegal and un constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 of respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District, whereby, he has ordered for preventive detention of the detenu by name Talavarasa Vijaya Babu, which in turn was confirmed by respondent No.1-State by G.O.Rt.No.830 GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 01.05.2025 and seeking declaration that the impugned orders of detention are illegal and unconstitutional, the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the writ petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents Nos.1 to 4. 3. The writ petitioner is the mother of the detenu by name Talavarasa Vijaya Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’). About five crimes were registered against him, pertaining to commission of various crimes under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘BNS’). Alleging that the acts of the detenu in involving himself in commission of repeated crimes of such nature, are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public tranquility, respondent No.2 was of the opinion that it is essential to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu to prevent him from committing the similar nature of crimes again and in the interest of the public order and public tranquility. Therefore, taking into 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 consideration the registration of the aforesaid crimes, respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 20.03.2025 of preventive detention against him. The said order was in-turn confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.830 GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 01.05.2025. Pursuant to the said orders of detention passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1, the detenu has been in detention since 22.03.2025. 4. The mother tongue of the detenu is Telugu. All the documents which are considered by the detaining authority and which are made basis for passing the impugned order of preventive detention i.e., the FIR, charge sheet, remand report and bail orders are in English language which are alien to the detenu, as he is not aware of the English language. Therefore, on the ground that the said documents which are made basis for passing the order of detention which are in English language, are not translated into Telugu language and the copies of the translated version is not supplied to the detenu, the writ petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu seeks to challenge the legal validity of the order of detention on that ground. 5. So, the only limited ground on which the order of detention was challenged is the translated version of the copies of the documents relied on by the detaining authority is not supplied to the detenu to enable him to make a valid and effective representation in exercise of his right conferred on him by the statue. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the Common High Court of Hyderabad in writ petition No.22323 of 2016, while relying on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu1 and Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 held that mere explaining the contents of the documents in a language known to the detenu, without supplying the translated copies of the same in a language known to the detenu and understood by him falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the Common High Court in the above cited judgments. He also contends the Division Bench of this Court also in writ petition No.15648 of 2023 in the case of Lalitha Bai v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others also laid down the same proposition of law relying on the earlier decided case law on the point. 7. Repelling the said contention, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that non-supply of translated version of the documents relied on by the detaining authority to the detenu by itself cannot be considered as a valid ground to impeach the validity of the order of detention and if the contents and substance of the said documents which are in English language are explained to the detenu in his vernacular language, then, it is sufficient compliance of requirement of law and the impugned order of detention cannot be set-aside on that ground. To prop up his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court 1 (1999) 2 SCC 413 22016 (1) ALT 738 (D.B.) 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 rendered in the case of Mrs. Nazia and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others3, wherein, at para No.18 of the judgment it is held that when the contents of the documents are explained to the detenu in the language known to him, the failure to supply each and every document referred to after translating the same into the language known to the detenu cannot be made as ground to invalidate the order of detention. He contends that Madras High Court has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India 4 in arriving at the said conclusion. 8. We have considered the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner which are referred to supra and also the judgment of the Madras High Court, which is relied on by the learned Government Pleader. It is settled position of law of precedents that judgment rendered by this Court earlier is binding on this Court. Even the judgment of the Common High Court i.e., the High Court of Hyderabad for the State of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is also binding on this Court. It is only when there is no contrary judgment of this Court on the law laid down by the other High Court then the judgment of the other High Court will have persuasive value and can be relied on by this Court. But, when there is a direct judgment of this Court on the point involved in the lis is available, this Court is bound by the proposition of law laid down in the earlier judgments of this Court and the Common High Court. As 32005 CRI.L.J.2925 41992 SCC (Cri) 1 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 noticed supra, while referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Common High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.22323 of 2016 already held that mere explaining the contents of such voluminous documents at one go would not ensure that the detenu would remember and recall all that was explained to him in Tamil for the purpose of formulating his representation effectively and failure to furnish such translated copies of documents relied upon in a language known and understood by the detenu falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Powanammal’s case and the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Common High Court in Vasanthu Sumalatha’s case. Then, the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.15648 of 2023 in Lalitha Bai’s case at para No.14 of the judgment held as follows: “The translated copy of the material was not furnished to the detenu on account of which he was seriously prejudiced in as much as he was not able to give effective representation to the authorities. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive him of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground. It has to be remembered that a detenu, while he is undergoing preventive detention is obviously denuded of his fundamental right to freedom and liberty postulated under the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the power to detain a person under the preventive detention laws is hedged in by various safeguards set out in Articles 21 and 22.The detaining authority cannot refuse to give copies of the relevant documents or the translations thereof in 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 vernacular to the detenu concerned. We are fortified on this proposition of law with the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Pramod Singla v. Union of India and others5. 9. Then in the said judgment this Court at para No.15 also while referring to another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra and others 6 held that as per the principles enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention to the detenu and must provide the material in support of the same and in the language understood by the detenu. 10. Ultimately, this Court in the said judgment while considering the said legal position as it is found that the detenu has been supplied with the documents in a foreign language, this Court has set-aside the order of detention and ordered for release of the detenue. 11. Therefore, in view of the settled law in this regard as discussed supra and in view of the judgments of the common High Court cited supra, the impugned order of preventive detention of respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2025 and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.830, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 01.05.2025 of respondent No.1 are liable to be set-aside. 12. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, passed by respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2025, 5 2023 SCC Online SC 374 6(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918 9 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21498 of 2025 against the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner by name Talavarasa Vijaya Babu and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.830, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 01.05.2025 that was passed confirming the said order. The detenu by name Talavarasa Vijaya Babu shall be forthwith released and set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 03.11.2025 MDP