High Court · 2025

H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 17.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYANandTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARH.C.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2025N.Murugan ... PetitionerVs1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise Department) St George Fort, Chennai.2. The District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.3. The Superintendent, Special Prison For Women, (Central Prison), Madurai 16. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned grounds of detention order passed by the 2nd nd respondent vide detention order No.91/2024 dated 23.12.2024 against the petitioner's aunt/detenue/Tmt.Muthupillai @ Muthupetchi (aged about 62 years), W/o.Duraipandi, and set aside the same and consequently direct 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025the respondents to produce the petitioner's aunt/detenue/Tmt.Muthupillai @ Muthupetchi (aged about 62 years), W/o.Duraipandi, before this Court now she is detained at Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Madurai District and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Sathya SelviFor Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)The petitioner is the Cousin of the detenue viz., Muthupillai @ Muthupetchi, W/o.Duraipandi, aged about 61 years. The detenue has been detained by the second respondent by Detention Order in detention order No.91/2024 dated 23.12.2024 holding her 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. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 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 documents relied on by the 2nd respondent at Page Nos.74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet are in English version and the translated copies have not been furnished to the detenue. Hence, it is submitted that the detenue was deprived of making effective representation.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the translated copies of Page Nos.74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet were not furnished to the detenue.5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is found that the translated version of the documents at Page Nos.74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet have not been furnished to the detenue. This non furnishing of translated copies of the vital documents would deprive the detenue 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025Tamil 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 detenue 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 detenue, 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 detenue 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 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025language known to and understood by the detenue, 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 detenuee be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''7. 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 Page Nos. 74 to 82 have not been furnished to the detenue. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular language, to the detenue, 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. The detention order passed in detention order No.91/2024 dated 23.12.2024 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenue viz., Muthupillai @ Muthupetchi, W/o.Duraipandi, aged about 61 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless her presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case. (C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.) 17.09.2025Index :Yes / NoNCC: Yes / NoInternet:Yesvsm6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025To1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise Department) St. George Fort, Chennai.2. The District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.3. The Superintendent, Special Prison For Women, (Central Prison), Madurai 16.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1063 of 2025C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.andR.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.vsmORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD) No.1063 of 202517.09.20258/8