Madras High Court
Gowsalya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1418 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.1418 of 2024
Gowsalya ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented
by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate / District Collector
O/o.District Collector,
Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... 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 connection with the detention
order No.85/2024 dated 31.08.2024 passed by the second respondent on
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1418 of 2024
petitioner's husband namely Siva (24/24) son of Vaengaiyan, Door No.3/135,
Kottaiyur, Karumaathur, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District has been detained
and branded as "Goonda" under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to set aside the same and to
produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maran
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 wife of the detenu viz., Siva, son of Vaengaiyan,
aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in Detention Order No.85/2024 dated 31.08.2024, 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the
ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copies at Page Nos.13,47 and
49 and the translated copy of the Arrest/Court Surrender Form Page No.108 to
111 and the Arrest Intimation Form Page No.112 have not been furnished to the
detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.13,47 & 49
furnished to the detenu, are illegible and it is also found that the translated copy
of the Arrest/Court Surrender Form Page No.108 to 111 and the Arrest Intimation
Form Page No.112 have not been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of
illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of
detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
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
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:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
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 legible copy of the
document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.13,47 & 49 of the
to 111 and the Arrest Intimation Form Page No.112 have not been furnished to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
detenu. This furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation in the
vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional 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 Detention Order No.85/2024 dated 31.08.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Siva, aged about 24 years, son of
Vaengaiyan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
NCC : Yes / No [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
Index : Yes / No 11.06.2025
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate / District Collector
Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
am
11.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:55 pm )
