Madras High Court
Dinesh vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.335 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.335 of 2025
DINESH
Petitioner(s) /brother of the detenue
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government,
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector And
District Magistrate Of Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Cuddalore O.T. Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
...Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
HCP.No.335 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 in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 15.01.2025 in
C3/D.O./07/2025 against the petitioner's brother Ajay, male aged 23 years,
S/o. Murali who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the
same and district the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court
and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the brother of the detenu, Ajay, male
aged 23 years, S/o. Murali who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent dated 15.01.2025 slapped on his brother, 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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 final report, has not been properly translated. It is therefore stated that
the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, particularly from page Nos.109 to 119,
this Court finds that a copy of the final report, was in both Tamil and
English, however, some portion of the same has not been translated in
Tamil. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
second respondent on 15.01.2025 in C3/D.O./07/2025, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ajay, male
aged 23 years, S/o. Murali who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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]
06.06.2025
(2/2)
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Secretary To The Government,
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector And
District Magistrate Of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
Cuddalore O.T. Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
