Madras High Court
Mariya Selvam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP No. 44 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. 44 of 2025
Mariya Selvam
W/o. Thomas, 36, Ottavadai Street,
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Its
Principal Secretary
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat
Complex,Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Office Of Commissioner Of Police,
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. 44 of 2025
4.The Inspector Of Police
M-3, Puzhal Police Station,
Chennai 600 066
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or a direction calling for the
records relating to the detention order in No.1187/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
02.12.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982
and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Daniel alias
Sebastian Daniel aged 22years S/O. Thomas who is presently confined in the
Central Prison Puzhal Chennai before this Hon'ble court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner(s): M/s.Santhosh
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyaparaj
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., Daniel, @
Sebastian Daniel S/o.Thomas, aged about 22 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 02.12.2024 slapped on her son,
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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 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 Memo of Evidence was not fully translated to Tamil version.
Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.107 and 108 in
Volume-II of the booklet furnished to the detenu, was not fully translated to
Tamil version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective
representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is
vitiated.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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 02.12.2024 in No.1187/BCDFGISSSV/2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Daniel, @
Sebastian Daniel S/o.Thomas, aged about 22 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
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat
Complex,Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Office Of Commissioner Of Police,
Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector Of Police
M-3, Puzhal Police Station,
Chennai 600 066.
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 )
