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

HCP.No.1702 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1702 of 2024Mrs.Geetha ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenuVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretary,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police(Goondas Section),Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O)R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station,Chennai.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.BCDFGISSSV No.326/2024 dated 08-04-2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Mr.Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged about 24 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son Mr.Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged about 24 years, the detenue herein at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.A.VelmuruganFor 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 Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged 24 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.04.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024Offenders, 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 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.159 and 161 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024the 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.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.1702 of 2024continued 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.1702 of 20246. 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 08.04.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.326/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged 24 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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] 31.07.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024Note:-Registry shall forthwith return the bookletcontaining the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance,to the petitioner/counsel for the petitionerwith due acknowledgment.To1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretary,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police(Goondas Section),Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O)R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station,Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.1702 of 202431.07.2024Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.1702 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1702 of 2024Mrs.Geetha ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenuVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretary,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police(Goondas Section),Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O)R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station,Chennai.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.BCDFGISSSV No.326/2024 dated 08-04-2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Mr.Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged about 24 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son Mr.Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged about 24 years, the detenue herein at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.A.VelmuruganFor 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 Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged 24 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.04.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024Offenders, 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 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.159 and 161 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024the 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.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.1702 of 2024continued 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.1702 of 20246. 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 08.04.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.326/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Yugendra, S/o.Rajan, aged 24 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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] 31.07.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024Note:-Registry shall forthwith return the bookletcontaining the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance,to the petitioner/counsel for the petitionerwith due acknowledgment.To1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretary,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police(Goondas Section),Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O)R-10, M.G.R. Nagar Police Station,Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1702 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.1702 of 202431.07.2024Page 8 of 8