Madras High Court
Kamala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1711 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1711 of 2025
Kamala ...Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1 . The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home),
Fort St.George Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-1 Mylapore 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 records in
No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.07.2025 on the file of the second
respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenue
Velavan Son of Gunasekran aged about 38 years who is confined at Central
Prison Puzhal Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 pm )
H.C.P.No.1711 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Velavan, S/o.Gunasekran, aged about 38 years, detained at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/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: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 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 the translated version of the petition for bail as
found in Page Nos.37 & 40 is improper. 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
Page Nos.37 & 40 of the booklet (Vol.I), the petition for bail has not been
properly translated entirety with regard to the name of Court. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 pm )
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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 pm )
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in
No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Velavan, S/o.Gunasekran, aged about 38 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.,)
14.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 pm )
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1 . The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home),
Fort St.George Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-1 Mylapore 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.1711 of 2025
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 04:51:24 pm )
