it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in v. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '

HCP.No.1259 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1259 of 2024Saraswathy ... Petitioner/mother of the detenueVs.1.State Represented by its Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.3.The Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in relating to the order Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.03.2024 in No. BCDFGISSSV No.212/2024 against the petitioner's son, the Detenue, Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.T.PerinbanathanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.03.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, 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].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.139 and 141 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20245. 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 continued 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024grounds 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.”6. 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.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20247. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 18.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.212/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.07.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024To1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.3.The Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal.5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. AnuH.C.P.No.1259 of 202411.07.2024Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.1259 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1259 of 2024Saraswathy ... Petitioner/mother of the detenueVs.1.State Represented by its Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.3.The Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in relating to the order Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.03.2024 in No. BCDFGISSSV No.212/2024 against the petitioner's son, the Detenue, Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.T.PerinbanathanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.03.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, 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].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.139 and 141 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.11, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 10.01.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20245. 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 continued 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024grounds 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.”6. 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.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 20247. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 18.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.212/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sarathkumar @ Kolar Mani, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Ramesh, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.07.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024To1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.3.The Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal.5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1259 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. AnuH.C.P.No.1259 of 202411.07.2024Page 8 of 8