Madras High Court
Krithika vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
HCP.No.241 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.241 of 2025
Krithika ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City, Avadi
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
EFD-1, Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Avadi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.05/BCDFGISSSV/
2025 DATED 09.01.2025 against the petitioner's husband Thanika @
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
HCP.No.241 of 2025
Thanikachalam, male, aged about 36 years, son of Palayam, now confined
in Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct
the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Salmankhan
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. Thanika @
Thanikachalam, aged about 36 years, S/o.Palayam, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 09.01.2025 slapped on 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 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: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the there is no translation of certain
documents which have been placed for passing the remand order. 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 Booklet, Volume I, it is seen that there is no
translation of certain documents issued by the Registrar, Pallavaram
containing in page Nos.79 to 114. Since a specific stand has been taken
that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner to make effective
representation, this Court finds that the failure to furnish a proper translated
copy of the documents issued by the Registrar, Pallavaram, vitiates the
Detention Order.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
'(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 09.01.2025 in No.05/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
Thanika @ Thanikachalam, aged about 36 years, S/o.Palayam, presently
confined in Central Prison, Vellore, 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.]
05.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City, Avadi
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
EFD-1, Central Crime Branch,
Avadi City, Avadi
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:29:25 pm )
