Madras High Court
Marimuthu vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 23 July, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1449 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1449 of 2024
Marimuthu ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, relating to the impugned
order of detention made in No.53/BCDFGISSV/2024, dated 03.09.2024 on the
file of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, the 2nd respondent herein,
branding the petitioner's son / detenu by name Ajay, S/o. Marimuthu, aged
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
HCP(MD)No.1449 of 2024
about 25 years as “Goonda” who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai
and quash the impugned order of detention and set him at liberty by producing
him before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Sankar
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 father of detenu viz., Ajay, S/o. Marimuthu,
aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in No.53/BCDFGISSV/2024, dated 03.09.2024, holding him to be a
"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
ground that the endorsement made in Page No.90, Part I of the booklet is
illegible. Though the clear typed version of Page No.90 provided at Page No.92,
the petitioner is unable to understand, whether the clear copy is exact translation
of the endorsement made at Page No.90. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu
was deprived of making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.
He Would further submit that the petitioner is unable to understand whether the
clear copy is exact translation of the endorsement made in Page No.90 at Page
No.92, Part I of the Booklet, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed.
According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been
caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus
petition.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the endorsement
made at Page No.90, Part I of the Booklet is illegible and the clear typed version
of Page No.90 furnished to the detenu at Page No.92, is unable to understand
by the petitioner. Non furnishing of legible and clear translation copy of the
vital documents would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
the authorities against the order of detention.
6. 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
merely finds a reference in the order of detention or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
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 the endorsement made in Page No.90,
furnished to the detenu at Page No.92, is unable to understand by the petitioner.
This furnishing of illegible copy to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional
right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
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 No.53/BCDFGISSV/2024, dated 03.09.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ajay, S/o. Marimuthu, aged
about 25 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.]
23.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madars High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ANDR.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 23.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 11:14:58 am )
