Madras High Court
Nivetha vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 27 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.641 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.641 of 2025
Nivetha
Petitioner(s) /wife of the detenue
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its,
Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department Secretariat, Chennai-600
009.
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Tiruvannamalai.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
HCP.No.641 of 2025
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Salem.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to
Petitioners husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order, dated 14.03.2025 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings D.O.No.11/2025-C2 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the said
petitioner's husband namely Murugan @ Puyal Murugan, aged 33 years, son
of Vijayan, before this Court and set him at liberty, now Petitioner's son
detained at Central prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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, Murugan @
Puyal Murugan, aged 33 years, son of Vijayan, who is confined at Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 14.03.2025 issued against her
husband, branding him as "Drug 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].
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 order of Detention passed by
the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of
the forensic examination report, has not been properly translated. It is
therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make
effective representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-I, particularly in page
Nos.31 and 32, this Court finds a copy of the forensic examination report in
both Tamil and English. However, some portion of the English version has
not been translated to its vernacular version. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document relied
upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would
deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. It
is in the said circumstances, this Court finds 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' 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
“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.
..... 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
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 14.03.2025 in D.O.No.11/2025-C2, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Murugan
@ Puyal Murugan, aged 33 years, son of Vijayan, who is confined at
Central Prison, Salem, 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]
27.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its,
Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department Secretariat, Chennai-600
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Tiruvannamalai.
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Salem.
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: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:28:06 pm )
