Madras High Court
K.Meenatchi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2024
K.Meenatchi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Trichirapalli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records, pertaining to the detention
order passed by the second respondent detention order in C.No.
80/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2024 dated 29.07.2024 to quash the same as illegal and
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2024
direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Vignesh son of Karunanithi, aged about 35 years, now detained as "Goonda" at
Trichy, Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu
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 mother of the detenu viz., Vignesh, son of
Karunanithi, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in C.No.80/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2024, dated 29.07.2024
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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
while detaining the detenu, has relied on remand extension order, which is
available at Page No.125 of the booklet and it is in English language. Though the
petitioner asked for translated copy of the same in the vernacular language, the
same has not been furnished by the Detaining Authority. 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 remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page
No.125 of the booklet, in vernacular language, has not been furnished to the
detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the said
document 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
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
nonsupply 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 non-furnishing of translated copy of the
remand extension order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.125 of
the booklet, in vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
right to make an effective 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 C.No.80/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2024, dated 29.07.2024, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vignesh, aged about 35 years,
son of Karunanithi, 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.]
11.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Trichirapalli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
am
11.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:13 am )
