Madras High Court
Rajammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 August, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.258 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.258 of 2025
Rajammal ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
M.H.S(MD)Confdl.No.6 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025 and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Manikandan @
Maniyachi Mani, aged 36 years, S/o. Karuppasamy who has been
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
HCP(MD)No.258 of 2025
termed as Drug Offender, now confined in Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Singaravel
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Manikandan
@ Maniyachi Mani, S/o. Karuppasamy, aged 36 years. The detenu has
been detained by the second respondent by his order in
M.H.S(MD)Confdl.No.6 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025, holding him 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the translated
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.
115 to 123 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is
deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the
translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at
Page Nos.115 to 123 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language,
has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that
the non-furnishing of translated copy of the said documents in the
vernacular language 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.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
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:
''6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in
all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
115 to 123 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, to the
detenu, 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in M.H.S(MD)Confdl.No.6 of 2025 dated
06.01.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz.,
Manikandan @ Maniyachi Mani, S/o. Karuppasamy, aged 36 years, is
directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
29.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
