M.Jothi vs Government Of Tamilnadu
2025 Latest Caselaw 3191 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3191 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2025

Madras High Court

M.Jothi vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 24 February, 2025

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

                                                                           HCP.No.3282 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 24.02.2025

                                                   CORAM :

                                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
                                                AND
                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

                                              H.C.P.No.3282 of 2024

                  M.Jothi                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs.

                  1.Government of Tamilnadu, rep, by its
                  The Additional Secretary
                  Secretary, Home, Prohibition
                  and Excise Department,
                  Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

                  2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
                  Krishnagiri District

                  3.The Superintendent of Police
                  The Superintendent of Police Office
                  Krishnagiri District

                  4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
                  Central Prison
                  Salem District

                  5.The Inspector of Police
                  AWPS Uthangarai Police Station
                  Uthangarai
                  Krishnagiri District                                     ... Respondents
                  PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

                  Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  HCP.No.3282 of 2024

                  issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order
                  passed in S.C.No.41 of 2024, dated 07.11.2024 on the file of the 2nd
                  respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to
                  produce the petitioner's brother detenu Kanagavel, S/o.Seetharaman, 40
                  years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem District before this Court and
                  set him at liberty.
                                  For Petitioner            : Mr.V.Vasudevan

                                  For Respondents           : Mr.M.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 sister of the detenu viz. Kanagavel,

aged about 40 years, S/o. Seetharaman, has come forward with this petition

challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated

07.11.2024 slapped on her brother, branding him as "Sexual 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].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Accident Register given to the

detenu has not been translated in vernacular language. In this

circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that serious

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective

representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that page No.16 is the

English version of the Accident Register which has not been translated in

Tamil. Since the specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is

caused to the petitioner, this Court finds that the failure to furnish the

translated copy of the Accident Register, vitiates the Detention Order.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

'(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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. 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 07.11.2024 in S.C.No.41 of 2024, is hereby set aside

and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kanagavel,

aged about 40 years, S/o. Seetharaman, is directed to be set at liberty

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other

case. No costs.

                                                               [M.S.R, J]           [N.S, J]
                                                                            24.02.2025

                  Index: Yes/No
                  Neutral Citation: Yes/No

                  kas

                  To