Madras High Court
Muthazhagi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To on 13 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.483 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.483 of 2025
MUTHAZHAGI
... Petitioner/daughter in law of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai -
600 009.
2.District Collector And District
Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Superintendent,
Special Prison For Women, Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
All Women Police Station Nagapattinam,
(i/c) Nagapattinam Town Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
HCP.No.483 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in C.O.C.No.02/2025 dated 06.02.2025 in detain the detenue under
2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a BOOT-LEGGER and quash the
same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Gandhi, wife of
Ramesh, aged about 54 years, detained at Special prison for women,
Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the daugther-in-law of the detenu
namely Gandhi, wife of Ramesh, aged about 54 years, detained at Special
prison for women, Tiruchirappalli has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
06.02.2025 slapped on her grandmother, branding her as "Bootlegger"
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
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 learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.26,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 09.01.2025 has not
been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from
making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.90 and 91 of the booklet in Volume-II, a copy of the Government
Order in G.O.(D).No.26, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
dated 09.01.2025 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue
is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention
Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 06.02.2025 in C.O.C.No.02/2025, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gandhi, wife
of Ramesh, aged about 54 years, detained at Special prison for women,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J]
13.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai -
600 009.
2.District Collector And District
Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Superintendent,
Special Prison For Women, Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
All Women Police Station Nagapattinam,
(i/c) Nagapattinam Town Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
