Madras High Court
Jayanthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.2130 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.2130 of 2025
Jayanthi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Principal Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram City
Chennai District
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
HCP.No.2130 of 2025
Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police
T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station
Chennai District
Crime No.253 / 2025 .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the detention order vide Memo No.BBCDEFGISSSV No.84/2025 dated
24.07.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct
the respondents herein to produce petitioner son, namely B.Nareshkumar,
aged about 20 years, S/o.Baskar (who is now confined in Central Prison,
Puzhal) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Saravanan
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 mother of the detenu B.Nareshkumar, aged
about 20 years, S/o.Baskar, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
bearing reference BBCDEFGISSSV No.84/2025 slapped on her son,
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, 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 grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the
habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned
counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that
the language known to the detenu is Tamil but the arrest intimation enclosed
in the booklet was not properly translated in Tamil, which prevented him
from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the
same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.
5. The arrest intimation form in English is enclosed at page No.57 of
the booklet served on the detenu, but the same translated in Tamil has not
been enclosed in the booklet. As the detenu is conversant only in Tamil, the
non-furnishing of arrest intimation form in Tamil, deprived him from
making an effective representation for revocation of the detention order.
Further, the non furnishing of translated version of document relied on by
the detaining authority, particularly when the detenu is not conversant with
the language, violates his constitutional rights and can vitiate the detention
order. Hence, on this ground, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
is liable to be quashed.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
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 detenuee be set free
forthwith unless she is required to be 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order
is liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.07.2025 in Memo
BBCDEFGISSSV No.84 of 2025 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz.,
B.Nareshkumar, S/o.Baskar, male, aged 20 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.]
24.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
To
1. The Principal Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram City
Chennai District
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police
T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station
Chennai District
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
