Madras High Court

A.Syed Ali Fathima vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2025

Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

HCP(MD)No.115 of 2025

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.115 of 2025

A.Syed Ali Fathima ... Petitioner

vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.

4. The Superintendent of Prison,
District Jail,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records

Page No.1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 pm )
HCP(MD)No.115 of 2025

connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.
115/2024 dated 01.08.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or
body of the detenu namely, the petitioner's son i.e., Satham Usain @
Cylinder, aged about 36 years, S/o. Abdul Razak @ Abubacker, now
detained at the District Jail, Dindigul, before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
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., Satham Usain

@ Cylinder, S/o. Abdul Razak @ Abubacker, aged about 36 years. The

detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.

(M)Confdl.No.115/2024 dated 01.08.2024, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 pm )

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

Page Nos.93 to 101 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 Nos.93 to 101 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 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:

''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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 pm )

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. 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 Nos.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 pm )

93 to 101 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.

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and

the order of detention in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.115/2024 dated 01.08.2024,

passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Satham

Usain @ Cylinder, S/o. Abdul Razak @ Abubacker, aged about 36 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






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 pm )





                To:

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, District Jail, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:08 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 05:05:08 pm )