Madras High Court
Sheebana vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P(MD)No.1509 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P(MD)No.1509 of 2024
Sheebana ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.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
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
H.C.P(MD)No.1509 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in
pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in Detention Order
in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.121/2024 dated 04.09.2024 quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband
namely, Shajahan, son of Mohammed Meerasa, aged about 42 years, who
is now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu
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 wife of the detenu viz., Shajahan, son of
Mohammed Meerasa, aged about 42 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.121/2024
dated 04.09.2024, holding her to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
under Section 2(e) 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 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 No.93 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 No.93 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
...
...
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 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.
...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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 No.93 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.121/2024 dated 04.09.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Shajahan, son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
Mohammed Meerasa, aged about 42 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.]
23.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
rm
To:
1.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
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
rm
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
