High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 12.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.76 of 2025Suganya... Petitionervs.1. State of Tamil Nadurep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George,Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City,Madurai.3.The Superintendent,Special Prison for Women,Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police,Koodalpudur Police Station,Madurai District.... RespondentsPRAYER: 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 passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention Order No.83/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 10.12.2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, viz., Tamilselvi, aged Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 202547 years, W/o. Ukkirapandi, before this Court and set her at liberty, now detained at Special Prison for Women, Madurai. For Petitioner: Mr.A. ThiyagarajanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of detenu viz., Tamilselvi, W/o. Ukkirapandi, aged 47 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.83/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 10.12.2024, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that part of the documents furnished at page Nos.29 and 30 in Volume I of the Booklet are in English and further, the document furnished at Page No.30 is not legible. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was unable to properly understand the same and thereby deprived of making effective representation.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that part of the documents furnished at page Nos.29 and 30 in Volume I of the Booklet are in English and further, the document furnished at Page No.30 is not legible. 5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is found that the part of the documents furnished at page Nos.29 and 30 in Volume I of the Booklet in English and further, the document furnished at Page No.30 is not legible. This non furnishing of translated copies of the vital documents 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 Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:''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 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 Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025document 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 nonsupply 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the documents furnished at page Nos.29 and 30 in Volume I of the Booklet in English and further, the document furnished at Page No.30 is illegible have impaired her constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025detention in Detention Order No.83/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 10.12.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Tamilselvi, aged W/o. Ukkirapandi, 47 years is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 12.08.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpTo:1.The Principal Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George,Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City,Madurai.3.The Superintendent,Special Prison for Women,Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police,Koodalpudur Police Station,Madurai District.5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No. 76 of 2025DATED : 12.08.2025Page No.7 of 7