High Court · 2025

HCP No. 1443 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P No. 1443 of 20251. PremaW/o.Mokkamayi, North Malliyan Thpavundu Thottam, VOC Street, Velipalayam, Nagapattinam.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District. Nagapattinam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20253.The Superintendent Of Police,Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, Thiruchirapalli District.5.The Inspector Of Police,Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.Respondent(s)PRAYERThe Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in C.O.C.No.15/2025, dated 25.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughter Revathi, W/o.Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen aged about 37 years the detenue, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli before this Court and set her at liberty.For Petitioner(s):Mr. J.JawaharFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025ORDERJ.NISHA BANU J.andS.SOUNTHAR J.The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Revathi, Female, 37 years, W/o. Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen, aged about 37 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirappai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.05.2025 slapped on her daughter, branding her 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]. 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.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenue from making effective https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025representation. 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.57 and 58 of the Volume – II, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 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.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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025document 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 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.”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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20257. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.05.2025 in C.O.C.No.15/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Revathi, Female, aged 37 years, W/o. Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen, detained at Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in connection with any other case. (J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)23-09-2025ASITo1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District. Nagapattinam.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20254.The Superintendent Of Prison,Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, Thiruchirapalli District.5.The Inspector Of Police,Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.6. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025J.NISHA BANU J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR J.ASIH.C.P No. 1443 of 2025 23-09-2025

HCP No. 1443 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P No. 1443 of 20251. PremaW/o.Mokkamayi, North Malliyan Thpavundu Thottam, VOC Street, Velipalayam, Nagapattinam.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District. Nagapattinam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20253.The Superintendent Of Police,Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, Thiruchirapalli District.5.The Inspector Of Police,Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.Respondent(s)PRAYERThe Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in C.O.C.No.15/2025, dated 25.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughter Revathi, W/o.Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen aged about 37 years the detenue, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli before this Court and set her at liberty.For Petitioner(s):Mr. J.JawaharFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025ORDERJ.NISHA BANU J.andS.SOUNTHAR J.The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Revathi, Female, 37 years, W/o. Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen, aged about 37 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirappai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.05.2025 slapped on her daughter, branding her 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]. 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.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenue from making effective https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025representation. 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.57 and 58 of the Volume – II, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 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.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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025document 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 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.”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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20257. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.05.2025 in C.O.C.No.15/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Revathi, Female, aged 37 years, W/o. Blacan @ Mohamed Moideen, detained at Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in connection with any other case. (J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)23-09-2025ASITo1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District. Nagapattinam.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 20254.The Superintendent Of Prison,Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli, Thiruchirapalli District.5.The Inspector Of Police,Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.6. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1443 of 2025J.NISHA BANU J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR J.ASIH.C.P No. 1443 of 2025 23-09-2025