Madras High Court
Parvathi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
HCP.No.342 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.342 of 2025
Parvathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
T-15, SR.M.C. Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with
the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 07.01.2025 in
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
HCP.No.342 of 2025
Memo No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son namely
Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, male aged 24 years, S/o.Muthukumar, who is
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.
Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, aged about 24 years, S/o.Muthukumar, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent dated 07.01.2025 slapped on her son, 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, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders,
Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the detenu has studied only upto 10th
standard and the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation Form given to the
detenu has not been fully translated. In this circumstances, learned counsel
for petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
for making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume I, it is seen that Arrest Card
and Arrest Intimation Form containing in page Nos.126 to 128 are not fully
translated in Tamil version. The detenu's qualification is only 10th
standard, and he is not well versed in English to read and understand the
particulars containing in the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation. Since a
specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the
petitioner to make effective representation, this Court finds that the failure
to furnish a proper translated copy of the Arrest Card and Arrest Intimation
Form, vitiates the Detention Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
second respondent on 07.01.2025 in No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
Ajithkumar @ Mavu Ajith, aged about 24 years, S/o. Muthukumar,
presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
4.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
T-15, SR.M.C. Police Station,
Chennai.
5.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:26 pm )
