High Court · 2025

H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 12.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025M.Raja Reegan... Petitioner/ Brother of the Detenue-vs-1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariate, Chennai.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention ____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025order passed in P.D.No.59 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's brother ie., Raja Singh @ King, aged about 39 years, S/o.Maria Siulvai, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.For Petitioner:Mr.N.PragalathanFor Respondents:Mr.A.ThiruvadikumarAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Raja Singh @ King, aged about 39 years, S/o.Maria Siulvai. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.59 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) 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.202 of 20253.Apart from the other grounds, the main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while making representation, a specific request was made to furnish Tamil version of documents at inner page 4 of the ground of detention. It is also seen that inspite of the request made by the detenu for furnishing translated and eligible documents, the same has not been furnished. Therefore, on that score, the order of detention is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Further, the learned counsel submitted that there is infraction of fundamental rights of the detenu. In view of the same, the detention order suffers from illegality.4.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the representation that a specific request has been made for furnishing Tamil translation of the documents that was relied upon by the detaining authority to come to a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu being granted bail. However, the Tamil translation of the document ____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025was not furnished to the detenu and hence, the detenu was not able to make an effective representation and thereby, fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. 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 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 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 ____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025show 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 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.''____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 20257. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the translated copies of the document have not been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular language to the detenu, 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.8.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.59 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Raja Singh @ King, aged about 39 years, S/o.Maria Siulvai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 12.08.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoNS____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 2025To:1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariate, Chennai.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.4.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.202 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA , J.NSH.C.P.(MD) No.202 of 202512.08.2025____________Page 8 of 8