Madras High Court
Ramya vs The Secretary To Government on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.474 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.474 of 2025
RAMYA ... Petitioner/ wife of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-cuddalore,
Cuddalore District
5.State Rep. By Its
The Inspector Of Police
Gingee Police Station, Villupuram
District.
...Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
HCP.No.474 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, relating to the
petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order, dated 24.02.2025 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings NO.C2/09/2025, Quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
husband namely Raja @ Marur Raja, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 40 years before
this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now
the petitioner's husband detained at central prison, cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kayalvizhi
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public proseuctor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Raja @
Marur Raja, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 40 years, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2025 issued against her
husband, branding him as "Sand Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
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
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copies
in the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of
making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of Volume I of the Booklet, it is seen that Page
No.47 in the booklet furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing
of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the detenu of
making effective representation to the authorities against the order of
detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 24.02.2025 in NO.C2/09/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Raja @
Marur Raja, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 40 years, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, 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]
20.06.2025
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 District Collector And District
Magistrate,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-cuddalore,
Cuddalore District
5.The Inspector Of Police
Gingee Police Station, Villupuram
District.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
