Madras High Court
Fathimabeevi vs The Secretary To The Government on 7 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.2024 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2024 of 2025
Fathimabeevi ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Commissionerate,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
D-5, Marina Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the order of Detention bearing
No.397/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 23.06.2025 on the file of the second
respondent and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband
Mr.Raji @ Light House Raji S/o Desamuthu Male aged about 34 years and
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
H.C.P.No.2024 of 2025
now confined at Central Prison-II Chennai before this Honble Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Raji @ Light House Raji, S/o.Desamuthu, male, aged about 34 years,
detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this
petition, challenging the detention order dated 23.06.2025, passed by the
second respondent in No.397/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.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the detenue was furnished with illegible copy at
Page No.149 of the booklet (Vol.II). Hence, it is submitted that the detenue
was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.149 of
the Booklet (Vol.II) furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing of
illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the detenue of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
order is liable to be quashed.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
No.397/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 23.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Raji @ Light House Raji, S/o.Desamuthu, male, aged about
34 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.,)
07.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
To:
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Commissionerate,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
D-5, Marina Police Station,
Chennai.
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.2024 of 2025
07.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
