High Court · 2025

H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 15.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARH.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025Chithradevi ...Petitioner/Mother of the detenuVs.1.State through Tamil Nadu rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukottai District3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the second respondent in P.D.O.No.13 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 and set aside the same as illegal and direct the ____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Silambarasan, S/o. Nagarajan, male aged about 34 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court.For Petitioner:Mr.M.KannanFor Respondents:Mr.A.Thiruvadi KumarAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN., J)The petitioner is the mother of the detenu,Silambarasan, S/o. Nagarajan, male aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.O.No.13 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the 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. ____________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 20253. 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 translated version of the Accident Register of the victim child is not given to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.20 and 21 of the first Booklet, which is the Accident Register, furnished to the detenu, is not translated in Tamil. This non-furnishing of translated copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.5. 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 Nadu, 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 ____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025understood 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 document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language....____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025...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 translated copy of Accident Register relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.20 and 21 of the first booklet is not given. This non-funishing of translation of the Accident Register has impaired his 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.____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 20257. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.O.No.13 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Silambarasan, S/o. Nagarajan, male aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 15.10.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NoCM____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025To:1.State through Tamil Nadu rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukottai District3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ____________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 2025C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J. ANDR.VIJAYAKUMARCMH.C.P.(MD) No.147 of 202515.10.2025____________Page 8 of 8