Madras High Court
Sneha vs The Secretary To The Government on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.490 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.490 of 2025
Sneha
Petitioner(s) /wife of the detenue
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai -
600 009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate Of
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Kilpennathur Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
HCP.No.490 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the
order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 25.02.2025 in
D.O.No.09/2025-C2 against the petitioner's husband Arun @ Arunkumar,
aged 24 years, S/o.Arumugam, confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the
Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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, Arun @
Arunkumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Arumugam, confined at Central Prison,
Vellore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 25.02.2025 issued against her
husband, branding him as "Goonda" 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: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenu was not furnished with the translated
copy of the bail order relied upon by the detaining authority. It is therefore
stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, it is seen that the bail
order in Crl.O.P.No.5630 and 5631 of 2023 dated 16.03.2023 relied upon by
the detaining authority in the grounds of detention is in foreign language
and the translated copy in vernacular language has not been furnished to the
detenu. This non-furnishing of the copy of the vital document would
deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
against the order of detention.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
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. 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 25.02.2025 in D.O.No.09/2025-C2, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arun @
Arunkumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Arumugam, confined at Central Prison,
Vellore, 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 The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai -
600 009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate Of
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:52:25 pm )
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Kilpennathur Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai 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 )
