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

H.C.P.No.1415 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1415 of 2025Santhi ... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore, Cuddalore District – 1.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore – 4.4.The Inspector of Police,Annamalai Nagar Police Station,Annamalai Nagar.5.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. ... Respondents(R5 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 14.08.2025 in HCP.No.1415 of 2025)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention dated 06.02.2025 in detention order C3/D.O./14/2025, on the file of the 5th respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Siva @ Odappu Siva @ Sivakumar, aged about 28 years, Hindu, S/o.Ramachandran, who is now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.KasirajanFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)We have taken note of the fact that the detention order was passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, whom the petitioner has not arrayed as a party. Since we intend to allow the Habeas Corpus Petition, the District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, is suo motu impleaded as the fifth respondent herein. Registry is directed to make necessary amendments in the petition.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 20252. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Siva @ Odappu Siva @ Sivakumar, aged about 28 years, S/o.Ramachandran, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the fifth respondent dated 06.02.2025 issued against 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].3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.4. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was not furnished with translated copy of the remand extension order. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 20255. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the remand extension order is in Tamil and its translated copy in vernacular language has not been furnished to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. 6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of '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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 2025copy 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 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 H.C.P.No.1415 of 20257. 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.8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the fifth respondent on 06.02.2025 in C3/D.O./14/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siva @ Odappu Siva @ Sivakumar, aged about 28 years, S/o.Ramachandran, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 14.08.2025 Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniNote: Issue Order Copy on 14.08.2025.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 2025To1.The Secretary to State of Tamil Nadu,Prohibition & Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore, Cuddalore District – 1.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore – 4.4.The Inspector of Police,Annamalai Nagar Police Station,Annamalai Nagar.5.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.7.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order),Chennai – 600 009.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1415 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.SniH.C.P.No.1415 of 202514.08.2025Page 8 of 8