Madras High Court
Malarvizhi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
HCP No. 1483 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
HCP No. 1483 of 2025
Malarvizhi
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented ,
by secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.State Rep by Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramipuram Police Station,
Chennai.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
HCP No. 1483 of 2025
issue a Writ of habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate order or direction,
calling for the records of the 2nd Respondents pertaining to the order made in
Memo no.424/BCDFGISSSV/2025, Dated 30.06.2025 in detaining the detenu
under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of Goonda and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Namely Dhanush @ martin, Son
of Arivazhagan, aged 22 years, who is detained at the Central prison, Puzhal,
Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Karthick.S
For Respondent(s): Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor,
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.,Dhanush @
Martin, S/o Arivazhagan, aged about 22 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 30.06.2025 slapped on 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, Sand Offenders, Sexual
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the
ground that the Arrest Intimation Report was not properly translated into Tamil
version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that
the Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated into Tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that Page No.23 of the booklet
furnished to the detenu, i.e., Arrest Intimation Report, was not properly
translated into Tamil version. Therefore, the detenu 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' 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 30.06.2025 in No.424/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dhanush @
Martin S/o Arivazhagan, aged about 22 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
03-11-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
To
1.The secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibitiona and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.State Rep by Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramipuram Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
mrp
03-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
