Madras High Court
Anandhi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.215 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.215 of 2025
ANANDHI ... Petitioner/ mother of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Office Of The Commissioner Of
Police, Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police
P-2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents
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
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
HCP.No.215 of 2025
order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in
No.21/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.01.2025 and quash the same as
illegal and produce the detenue, namely Issac Jebakumar,
S/o.Thanikachalam, aged 23 years, GOONDA now he is confined in
Central prison, puzhal II, Chennai before this Honble court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public proseuctor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Issac
Jebakumar, S/o.Thanikachalam, aged 23 years, confined in Central prison,
puzhal II, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.01.2025 issued
against her son, 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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, as well as 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 postmortem report has not been 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, this Court finds that the postmortem
report in page No.89 has not been translated. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 13.01.2025 in No.21/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Issac Jebakumar, S/o.Thanikachalam, aged 23 years, confined in
Central prison, puzhal II, Chennai, 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
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Office Of The Commissioner Of
Police, Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
3.The Superintendent Of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police
P-2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
