Madras High Court
Manimegalai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.683 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.683 of 2025
Manimegalai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Kallakurichi District
Kallakurichi
3.The Superintendent of Police
Kallakurichi District
Kallakurichi
4.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police
Ulundurpettai All Women Police Station
Kallakurichi District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
H.C.P.No.683 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 pertaining to the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.C2/06/2025
dated 06.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu,
namely Annamalai, S/o.Arumugam, aged 35 years, as sexual offender,
now he is confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.William
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, viz.
Annamalai, aged 35 years, S/o.Arumugam, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 06.03.2025 slapped on her
husband, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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 Arrest Intimation Form 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 No.27 of the booklet in Volume-I, a copy of the Arrest Intimation
Form, dated 14.02.2025 is available and the translated copy in
vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenu.
Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation
and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is
vitiated.
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'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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
the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
complaint of non-supply of document has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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 06.03.2025 in D.O.No.C2/06/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
Annamalai, aged about 35 years, S/o.Arumugam, 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.]
26.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non Speaking
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Kallakurichi District
Kallakurichi
3.The Superintendent of Police
Kallakurichi District
Kallakurichi
4.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
5.The Inspector of Police
Ulundurpettai All Women Police Station
Kallakurichi District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
