Madras High Court
Radha vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1149 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.1149 of 2025
Radha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Peralam Police Station,
Tiruvarur 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 ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
H.C.P.No.1149 of 2025
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in C.O.C.No.04/2025 dated 14.02.2025 in detain the detenue under
2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a BOOT-LEGGER and quash
the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Selvaprakash @
Sellappa, son of Rajendran aged about 27 years, who is detained at Central
Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S. RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu namely
Selvaprakash @ Sellappa, aged about 27 years, S/o.Rajendran, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 14.02.2025 issued against her brother, branding
him as "Boot-Legger" 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: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 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 detenu was not furnished with translated copy of the
report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thanjavur. Hence, it
is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet particularly in Volume No.I, page
No.39, it is seen that the report of the Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory, Thanjavur is in English and its translated copy in vernacular
language has not been furnished to the detenue. This non-furnishing of
the copy of the vital document would deprive the detenue of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of '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
detenue, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 14.02.2025 in C.O.C.No.04/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Selvaprakash @ Sellappa,
aged about 27 years, S/o.Rajendran, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
09.07.2025
nl
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Peralam Police Station,
Tiruvarur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order),
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
09.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 09:21:06 pm )
