Madras High Court
S.Sathya vs The Secretary To The Government on 17 March, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.289 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.289 of 2025
S.Sathya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District
Thiruvarur
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli
5.The Inspector of Police
Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station
Thiruvarur District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
HCP.No.289 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected
with the order of the 2nd respondent herein concerned in
C.O.C.No52/2024 dated 19.11.2024 and quash the order of detention
passed therein by the 2nd respondent herein against the detenu and
directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the
detenu by name Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, Male
aged about 33 years, residing at Meenatchivaikkal Kela Theru,
Thiruthuraipoondi and Post, Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station Limit,
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District now detained at Central
Prison, Tiruchirappali before this Court and setting him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivazhagan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.
Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years,
detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
dated 19.11.2024 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though the 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.300,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 has
not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from
making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.44 to 46 of the booklet in Volume II, a copy of the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
Order in G.O.(D).No.300, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)
Department, dated 14.10.2024 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' 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
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,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
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 19.11.2024 in C.O.C.No.52/2024, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years,
detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
17.03.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
kas
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District
Thiruvarur
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli
5.The Inspector of Police
Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station
Thiruvarur District
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:23:50 am )
