Madras High Court
Manjula vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 9 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.308 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.308 of 2025
Manjula ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai -66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Law & Order
T-15 S.R.M.C. Police Station,
Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection wit
the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 25.01.2025
in No.07/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son namely Anand
@ Assault Anand, male, aged about 28 years, S/o.Elumalai, who is
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
H.C.P.No.308 of 2025
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. Anand
@ Assault Anand, aged 28 years, S/o.Elumalai, confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.01.2025
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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 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
furnished 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, it is seen that Arrest Card and Arrest
Intimation Form containing in page Nos.98 and 99 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.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 document merely
finds a reference in the order of detention or among
the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 second respondent on 25.01.2025 in No.07/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz. Anand @ Assault Anand, aged about 28 years, S/o.Elumalai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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.]
09.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai -66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Law & Order
T-15 S.R.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: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
