Madras High Court
Subbulakshmi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 25 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
HCP No. 1729 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
HCP No. 1729 of 2025
Subbulakshmi
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Commissioner’s Office, (Goondas division),
Vepery, Chennai - 600007.
3.Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.Inspector of Police
1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
HCP No. 1729 of 2025
F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of HABEAS CORPUS calling
for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent herein in
No.469/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 12/7/25 and Quash, the same and produce
the detenue Chandrakanth, S/o.Balasubramanian aged 29 years now detained at
Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Mohana Krishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.,Chandrakanth,
aged about 29 years, S/o. Balasubramanian, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
passed by the second respondent dated 12.07.2025 slapped on her husband,
branding him as "GOONDA" under 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, as well as 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 Report was not properly translated into Tamil version.
Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that
3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
the Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated into Tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that in Page No.103 of the
Volume-I, furnished to the detenu, i.e., Arrest Report, was not properly
translated into Tamil version. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making
effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
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 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 {as in SCC journal} as
follows:-
4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
“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,
5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
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.”
7. 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.
8. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 12.07.2025 in No.469/BCDFGISSSV/2025/ is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Chandrakanth, aged about 29 years, S/o. Balasubramanian confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
25-11-2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Commissioner Office, (Goondas division),
Vepery, Chennai - 600007.
3.Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.Inspector of Police
F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
mrp
9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
25-11-2025
10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
