Madras High Court
Manjula vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2025
Manjula ... Petitioner/Detenue's Mother
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Avadi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
B-4, Sevvapet Police Station,
Sevvapet, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detenue's
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Order
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2025
No.101/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.07.2025 and set aside the same and
produce the petitioner's son M.Sekar, S/o.Murugaiyan, male aged 26 years
now detained in Central Prison Puzhal Chennai before this Honble Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue,
namely, M.Sekar, S/o.Murugaiyan, male aged 26 years, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition, challenging
the detention order dated 10.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
No.101/BCDFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as contemplated
under Section 2(f) of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
3. Though 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 there was no translated version of the Arrest
Intimation Memo at Page No.25 of Vol.I furnished to the detenue. This
deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the
sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
non-supply of the translated version to the detenue.
5. On perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly in Page No.25 of the booklet (Vol.I), the translated copy of the
Arrest Intimation Memo has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore,
the detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
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 detenue 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
detenue, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of th said judgment 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 detenue 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 detenue'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 detenue, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenuee be set free
forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other
case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
7. 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.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in No.101/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., M.Sekar, S/o.Murugaiyan, male aged 26 years, who is now
confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with
any other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
03.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Avadi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
B-4, Sevvapet Police Station,
Sevvapet, Tiruvallur District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1972 of 2025
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
