High Court · 2025

H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT1DATED : 30.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARH.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025S.Pothumponnu ... Petitioner/Wife of the DetenuVs1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by,The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai-600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District.3. The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Inspector of Police,Manikandam Police Station,Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India To call for the entire records in detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.11/2025, dated 26.03.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Sathishkumar, S/o.Thangaraj, male, aged about 33 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner:Mr.K.A.S.PrabhuFor 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 wife of the detenu, namely Sathishkumar, S/o.Thangaraj, male, aged about 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.11/2025, dated 26.03.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. ____________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025 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 petitioner, it is stated that in the remand report at page No.43, there is difference between English version and Tamil version. In English version, it is stated that ''age and identification verified'' but the same is not mentioned in Tamil version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.4. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that remand order was issued on 09.03.2025. But the translation of the remand order is not correct. This defect in the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 20255. 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 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 ____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025merely 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.''6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that there is omission in Tamil version of the remand order which is relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.43 of the first Booklet. This omission of translated copy given to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective ____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025representation 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.7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.11/2025, dated 26.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sathishkumar, S/o.Thangaraj, male, aged about 33 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.] 30.10.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NoCM____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2025To:1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by,The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District.3. The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Inspector of Police,Manikandam Police Station,Tiruchirappalli District.5.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.1103 of 2025C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J. ANDR.VIJAYAKUMARCMH.C.P.(MD) No.1103 of 202530.10.2025____________Page 8 of 8