Madras High Court
Premkumar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 4 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1309 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.1309 of 2024
Premkumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Detention
Order No.74/2024 dated 23.07.2024 and quash the same and direct the
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1309 of 2024
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Premkumar, son of Thiyagarajan, aged about 31 years, now detained as
''Goonda'' at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
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 detenu viz., Premkumar, S/o.
Thiyagarajan, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.74/2024 dated
23.07.2024, 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 02:42:36 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is
a defective translation of the endorsement made in the remand report
by the learned Magistrate. 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 endorsement in the remand report relied on by the
Detaining Authority is defective. Therefore, we are of the view that it
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
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 pm )
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
opportunity of making an effective representation against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 pm )
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 defective translation of the
endorsement made in the remand report by the learned Magistrate, has
impaired the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 pm )
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 Detention Order No.74/2024 dated 23.07.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Premkumar,
S/o. Thiyagarajan, aged about 31 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 Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 pm )
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:36 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 02:42:36 pm )
