Madras High Court
Susila vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
HCP.No.622 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.622 of 2025
Susila ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police Law & Order
R-11, Ramapuram Police Station
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 083 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the Commissioner
of Police, Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate, Vepery, Chennai, the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
HCP.No.622 of 2025
2nd respondent herein in connection with the direction order vide 11/
BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 07.01.2025 and quash the same and further
direct the respondents to produce the detenu Naresh, male aged 26 yaers,
son of Devaraj, who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mubeen
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. Naresh,
aged about 26 years, S/o.Devaraj, 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: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 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 that there is no translation of the Final Report filed by the
respondent police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumpudur. 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, it is seen that Final Report filed by the
respondent police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumpudur, in Volume II, Page No.42 has not been translated. 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 Final Report, vitiates the
Detention Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 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: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 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: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
second respondent on 07.01.2025 in No.11/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
Naresh, aged about 26 years, S/o.Devaraj, 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police Law & Order
R-11, Ramapuram Police Station
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 083
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
