Madras High Court
M.Sadhana vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.412 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.412 of 2025
M.Sadhana ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District
4.The Inspector of Police
Velankanni Police Station
Nagapattinam District
5.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Thiruchirappalli ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
HCP.No.412 of 2025
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 in C.O.C.No.40/2024 dated 30.11.2024 on the file
of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband
namely Mahakumar, aged about 26 years, son of Gunasekaran, now
confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him
at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Kathiravan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.
Mahakumar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Gunasekaran, detained at Central
Prison, Thiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.11.2024
slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
Sand Offenders, Sexual 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.281,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 has
not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from
making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.119 & 120 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in
G.O.(D).No.281, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated
14.10.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of
the same has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention
Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
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
'(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
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 30.11.2024 in C.O.C.No.40/2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
Mahakumar, aged 26 years, S/o.Gunasekaran, detained at Central Prison,
Thiruchirappalli, 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.]
05.06.2025
(3/3)
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District
4.The Inspector of Police
Velankanni Police Station
Nagapattinam District
5.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Thiruchirappalli
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
05.06.2025
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
