THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No

HCP.No.585 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.585 of 2025Kalaiselvi Balakrishanan... Petitioner/ wife of the detenueVs.1. The Additional Chief Secretary,Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate, Office Of The District Collector And District Magistrate, Perambalur - 621 212.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Perambalur Collector Office Road, Near District Court Campus, Peambalur - 621 212 Tiruchirappalli.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.5.The Inspector Of Police,Kaikalathur Police Station, Perambalur.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the Second respondent herein and made in Cr.M.P.No.02/2025 dated 08.02.2025 and to set aside the same and directing the fourth Respondent to produce the detenue, my husband Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and thereby, setting him at Liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.T.DhamodharanFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.02.2025 issued against her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the postmortem report has not been translated. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-I, this Court finds that the postmortem report in page Nos.53 & 54 has not been translated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025right to make effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount 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 so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language......16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 20256. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 08.02.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.02/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary,Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 20252.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate, Office Of The District Collector And District Magistrate, Perambalur - 621 212.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Perambalur Collector Office Road, Near District Court Campus, Peambalur - 621 212 Tiruchirappalli.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.5.The Inspector Of Police,Kaikalathur Police Station, Perambalur.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai. 7.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. AnuH.C.P.No.585 of 202513.06.2025Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.585 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.585 of 2025Kalaiselvi Balakrishanan... Petitioner/ wife of the detenueVs.1. The Additional Chief Secretary,Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate, Office Of The District Collector And District Magistrate, Perambalur - 621 212.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Perambalur Collector Office Road, Near District Court Campus, Peambalur - 621 212 Tiruchirappalli.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.5.The Inspector Of Police,Kaikalathur Police Station, Perambalur.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the Second respondent herein and made in Cr.M.P.No.02/2025 dated 08.02.2025 and to set aside the same and directing the fourth Respondent to produce the detenue, my husband Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and thereby, setting him at Liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.T.DhamodharanFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.02.2025 issued against her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the postmortem report has not been translated. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-I, this Court finds that the postmortem report in page Nos.53 & 54 has not been translated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025right to make effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount 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 so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language......16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 20256. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 08.02.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.02/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Devendhiran S/o. Periyasamy, aged about 29 years, confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary,Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 20252.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate, Office Of The District Collector And District Magistrate, Perambalur - 621 212.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Perambalur Collector Office Road, Near District Court Campus, Peambalur - 621 212 Tiruchirappalli.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.5.The Inspector Of Police,Kaikalathur Police Station, Perambalur.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai. 7.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.585 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. AnuH.C.P.No.585 of 202513.06.2025Page 8 of 8