Madras High Court
Poonkodi 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.1384 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.1384 of 2024
Poonkodi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected
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.1384 of 2024
with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.
62/2024 dated 03.08.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Ramakrishnan, son of
Perumalsamy, aged about 28 years, detained as ''Goonda'' at Palayamkottai
Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani
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 mother of the detenu viz., Ramakrishnan,
son of Perumalsamy, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.62/2024 dated
03.08.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section
2(f) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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 copy
of the documents namely, arrest memo relied on by the Detaining
Authority at Page Nos.67 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in which it was partly
in English and partly in Tamil and full translated copy, 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.67 of the Booklet (Volume-I), in full vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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.
...
...
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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.
...
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated
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 M.H.S.Confdl.No.62/2024 dated 03.08.2024, passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Ramakrishnan, son
of Perumalsamy, aged about 28 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
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 )
