Judgment · High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No.561 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 28.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.561 of 2025 Esakkipandi... Petitionervs.

The State of Tamil Nadurep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District,3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entice records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl. No.11/2025, dated 24.01.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.561 of 2025or person of the detenu by name Esakkipandi, Son of Subramanian, aged about 23 years, now detaining as “Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Dr. R. AlagumaniFor 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 detenu viz., Esakkipandi, Son of Subramanian, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl. No.11/2025, dated 24.01.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.

Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.561 of 2025furnished at Page No. 41, Volume I of the booklet are partially in English and Partially in Tamil and the petitioner was not furnished with translation of English portions of those documents. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the documents furnished at Page No. 41, Volume I of the booklet are partially in English and Partially in Tamil and the petitioner was not furnished with translation of English portions of those documents. Therefore, we are of the view that the partial translation of the said document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

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. Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.561 of 2025 The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:''

The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.......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.