Madras High Court
G.Punitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.487 of 2025
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.487 of 2025
G.Punitha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayilduthurai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayilduthurai
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police
Palaiyur Police Station,
Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
H.C.P.No.487 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in connection
with the detention order in C.O.C.No.07/2025 dated 13.02.2025 passed
by the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son
namely Sudhakaran, S/o.Gobu, male, aged about 28 years, who is
detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu
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, viz.
Sudhakaran, aged 28 years, S/o.Gobu, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 13.02.2025 slapped on her
son, branding her as "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
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 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 forensic report 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.33 and 34 of the booklet in Volume-I, a copy of the Forensic
Examination Report, dated 06.02.2025 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
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 13.02.2025 in C.O.C.No.07/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
Sudhakaran, aged about 28 years, S/o.Gobu, presently confined in Central
Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty 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 District Collector and
District Magistrate
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayilduthurai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayilduthurai
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
Palaiyur Police Station,
Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:44 am )
