Madras High Court
Angammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1545 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1545 of 2024
Angammal ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate & District Collector,
Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Trichy. ... Respondents
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 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.
27/2024 dated 03.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the detenu namely, Sudhakar, S/o. Murugesan, aged about
27 years now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and
set him at liberty.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1545 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
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., Sudhakar,
S/o. Murugesan, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.27/2024 dated
03.09.2024, 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
translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
Page No.108 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. 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 documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at
Page No.108 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-
furnishing of translated copy of the said documents in the vernacular
language 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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
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. 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 documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.
108 of the Booklet(Volume-I), in 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.27/2024 dated 03.09.2024, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Sudhakar, S/o.
Murugesan, aged about 27 years, 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.]
16.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate & District Collector,
Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
