Madras High Court
Santha Soroopini vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP No. 390 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
HCP No. 390 of 2025
Santha Soroopini
W/o.Sham Singh, No.28/2 Nair
Ayyapillai Street, Royapettah, Chennai-
600 014.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its
Secretary To Govt.
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
HCP No. 390 of 2025
4.The Inspector Of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Adayar, Chennai.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction more specifically in the nature of a writ of Habeas Corpus call for the
entire records leading to the detention of the petitioners husband Ajay S/o.Sham
singh, Male aged about 26 years is presently lodged in Central prison for
Puzhal, Puzhal at Chennai and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a Drug
Offender vide detention order dated 16.12.2024 on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein, made in No.1253/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person
of the said detenu before this Honble court and thereafter set him at liberty from
the central prison, puzhal, chennai.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Rajavelu
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Ajay,
S/o.Shyam Singh, aged about 26 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
passed by the second respondent dated 16.12.2024 slapped on his son, branding
him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other
grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on
the ground that the English version of similar case bail order has not been
translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making
effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page
Nos.74 to 76 in Volume-II of the booklet, this Court finds that a copy of the
similar case bail order is available, in which the entries in English has not been
translated in vernacular version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making
effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999)
2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards
embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should
be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as
follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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
non-supply 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. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 16.12.2024 in No.1253/BCDFGISSSV/2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ajay,
S/o.Shyam Singh, aged about 26 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is
required in connection with any other case.
(M.S.RAMESH J.)(N.SENTHILKUMAR J.)
01-04-2025
ASI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
To
1. The Secretary To Govt.
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4.Inspector Of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Adayar, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
M.S.RAMESH J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
ASI
01-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
