Madras High Court
Sivaraman vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.1693 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1693 of 2025
Sivaraman ... Petitioner
Father of the detenue
Versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Namakkal
Namakkal District
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Salem Central Prison
Salem
4. The Superintendent of Police
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
HCP.No.1693 of 2025
5. The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station
Namakkal District .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records,
connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in
C.M.P.No.48/GOONDA/2025(M1) dated 10.05.2025 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by
name Thiru.Selvamanikkam, son of Sivaraman, aged about 28 years, now
confining at Salem Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Aravinthan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Selvamanikkam,
S/o.Sivaraman, male, aged 28 years, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
10.05.2025 bearing reference C.M.P.No.48/GOONDA/2025 (M1) slapped
on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on
the ground that the Arrest Intimation Form was not fully translated to Tamil
Version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making
effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.35 of the
booklet furnished to the detenu i.e., Arrest Intimation Form, was not fully
translated to Tamil version. Therefore, the detenue 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation
effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every
material is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of the 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
..... 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 detenuee 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 order
is liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 10.05.2025 in C.M.P.No.48/GOONDA/2025 (M1) is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Selvamanikkam, S/o.Sivaraman, male, aged 28 years, is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
17.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate
Namakkal
Namakkal District
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Salem Central Prison
Salem
4. The Superintendent of Police
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District
5. The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station
Namakkal District
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:52:27 pm )
