Madras High Court
Karpagam vs The Secretary To Government on 13 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.488 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.488 of 2025
KARPAGAM ... Petitioner/ mother of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Secretary To Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Fort
St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore
District.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
4.State Rep. By Its
The Inspector Of Police, D-3,
Podanur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
... 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, relating to the
petitioners son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
HCP.No.488 of 2025
order, dated 10.02.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made
in proceedings C.No.13/G/IS/2025, quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son
namely K.Sunal @ Kotteeswaran, S/o.Kutty, aged 26 years before this
Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the
petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kayalvizhi
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 namely
K.Sunal @ Kotteeswaran, S/o.Kutty, aged 26 years, confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.02.2025
issued against 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 learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by
the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of
Judicial Form-14 has not been properly translated in Tamil. It is therefore
stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, particularly, in page Nos.124 and
125, this Court finds that the copies of the Judicial Form-14 were placed in
both English and Tamil. However, some facts in the Tamil translated copy
differs from the English version, specifically, the date mentioned above the
signature of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied
upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction,
would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective
representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
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
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 10.02.2025 in C.No.13/G/IS/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., K.Sunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
@ Kotteeswaran, S/o.Kutty, aged 26 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal II, Chennai, 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
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Secretary To Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Fort
St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore
District.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police, D-3,
Podanur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
