Madras High Court
Manimekalai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1921 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1921 of 2025
Manimekalai ...Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1 . The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. District Magistrate and District Collector,
Nammakkal District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Molasi Police Station, Namakkal District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of
detention passed in his proceedings in C.M.P.No.56/Drug Offender/2025/M1
dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and
directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband by name Bala @
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
H.C.P.No.1921 of 2025
Dhanapal, S/o.Veerasamy aged about 34 years before this Court now
confined in Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepakkumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Bala @ Dhanapal, S/o.Veerasamy aged about 34 years, detained at Central
Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention
order dated 29.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.56/Drug Offender/2025/M1, branding him as a "Drug Offender",
as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the translated version of the Remand Extension
Order as found in Page Nos.48 & 50 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.48 & 50 of the booklet (Vol.I), the Remand Extension Order has
not been properly translated, as there is a contradiction in the translation in
respect of production of the accused before the 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: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in
C.M.P.No.56/Drug Offender/2025/M1 dated 29.05.2025, is hereby set aside.
The detenue, viz., Bala @ Dhanapal, S/o.Veerasamy aged about 34 years,
who is now confined in the Central Prison, Salem 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.,)
24.11.2025
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: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
To:
1 . The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. District Magistrate and District Collector,
Nammakkal District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Molasi Police Station, Namakkal District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1921 of 2025
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
