Madras High Court
B.Vaishnavi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.3171 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.3171 of 2024
B.Vaishnavi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4.The Inspector of Police
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station,
Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the
order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
H.C.P.No.3171 of 2024
No.1131/ BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 18.11.2024 and quash the same as
illegal and produce the detenu namely Boobalan, S/o.Murugan, aged 23
years, Goonda now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Kalyani
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, viz. Boobalan,
aged 23 years, S/o.Murugan, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2024 slapped on her
husband, branding her 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3.Though 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 similar case bail order furnished to the
detenu has not been translated. In this circumstances, learned counsel for
petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
for making effective representation.
4.On a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.286 to 288 of the booklet in Volume-II, a copy of the similar
case bail order dated 18.09.2024 is available and the translated copy in
vernacular version 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
'(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
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 18.11.2024 in No.1131/ BCDFGISSSV/2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz. Boobalan, aged about 23 years, S/o.Murugan, presently confined in
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
17.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4.The Inspector of Police
V-1, Villivakkam Police Station,
Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
kas
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
