Madras High Court
Joy Jennet vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By on 4 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1510 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1510 of 2024
Joy Jennet ... Petitioner
vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu rep by,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd
respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.
82/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated 29.07.2024 in detaining the detenu
under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1510 of 2024
namely Suresh S/o.Kannaiyan, Male, aged about 49 years, who is
detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
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 wife of the detenu viz., Suresh, son of
Kannaiyan, aged about 49 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in C.No.82/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024
dated 29.07.2024, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 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.39 to 41 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. 39 to 41 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
Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
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
would amount to denial of the right of being
communicated the grounds and of being afforded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
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.
39 to 41 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, to the detenu,
has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
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 C.No.82/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2024 dated
29.07.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz.,
Suresh, son of Kannaiyan, aged about 49 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.]
04.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
