High Court · 2025

HCP.No.1591 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 29.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANH.C.P.No.1591of 2025T.Mumtaz ... PetitionerVersus1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai – 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Chennai3. The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai4. The Inspector of Police W15, Royapuram Police Station Chennai .. Respondents1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 2025Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call to the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.447/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely Satham Hussan, S/o.Thamim, aged 26 years, Sexual Offender, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner:Ms.M.KalyaniFor Respondents:Mr.A.GokulakrishnanAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Satham Hussan, male, S/o.Thamim, aged 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.07.2025 bearing reference No.447/BCDFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that the language known to the detenu is Tamil but the arrest intimation translated in Tamil was not served on the detenu and the same has prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.5.A perusal of the booklet would disclose that the translated version of the arrest intimation was not furnished to the detenu in a language known to him, thereby the detenu has been put to prejudice and is deprived of making an effective representation for revocation of the detention order. The non furnishing of translated version of document relied on by the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 2025detaining authority particularly when the detenu is not conversant with the language violates his constitutional rights and can vitiate the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and is liable to be quashed.6. 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 is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of the said judgment 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 detenue need not show that 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 2025any 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 detenue'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 detenue, 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 detenuee be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”7. 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.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 20258. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.07.2025 in Memo No.447/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz., Satham Hussan, male, S/o.Thamim, aged 26 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 29.10.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nogpa6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 2025To1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai – 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Chennai3. The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai4. The Inspector of Police W15, Royapuram Police Station Chennai5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 96.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1591 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,ANDM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,gpaH.C.P.No.1591 of 202529.10.20258