Balaji vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
2025 Latest Caselaw 8939 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8939 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 November, 2025

Madras High Court

Balaji vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 26 November, 2025

Author: N. Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

HCP No. 2014 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-11-2025
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P No. 2014 of 2025

1. Balaji
S/o. Anandh, Kallankaradu,
Periyasemur, Erode district.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George ,
Chennai 600009.
2.The District Magistrate and District
Collector
Erode District, Erode.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police
Erode District , Erode.
5.The Inspector of Police
North Police Station, Erode.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER

The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to issue a Writ, order or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )
HCP No. 2014 of 2025

Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling
for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd
respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.MP.No.36/Drug Offender/2025 C1
dated 12.07.2025 in detaining the detenu under section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu
Act 14/1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the detenu namely Balaji S/o. Anandh, Male aged about 22 years,
who is now detained in Central prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set
him at liberty.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar
For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The petitioner/ detenu viz., Balaji, S/o.Anandh, aged about 22 years,

confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition

challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated

12.07.2025 branding him as "Drug Offender" 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

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.18 of the Volume-I

of the booklet furnished to the detenu, i.e., Arrest Intimation Form, was not

fully translated to Tamil version. 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

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 and in

view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is

liable to be quashed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the

second respondent on 12.07.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.36/Drug Offender/2025 C1 is

hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,

Balaji, aged about 22 years, S/o. Anandh, confined at Central Prison,

Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is

required in connection with any other case.

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 26-11-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Mrp

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George , Chennai 600009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District, Erode.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central prison, Coimbatore.