Madras High Court
Pappa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.1548 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1548 of 2024
Pappa ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By,
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected
with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.
45/S.O/2024, dated 18.11.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Ajaikumar, S/o.Pothuraja, aged about 18 years, now detained as “Sexual
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.1548 of 2024
Offender” at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Ajaikumar,
S/o.Pothuraja, aged about 18 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.45/S.O/2024, dated
18.11.2024 holding him to be a 'Sexual Offender', as contemplated under
Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under
challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on
the ground that the detenu has not been furnished with a translated copy
of the 'remand order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page Nos.33 and 34 of the booklet Volume-I. Hence, it is
submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet-Volume-I, it is seen that Page
Nos.33 and 34 of the Booklet Volume-I, which is the remand order
furnished to the detenu is in English version. This non-furnishing of
Tamil Version of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court,
after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an
opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which
can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of
the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''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 nonsupply
of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and
in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
in all force to the case on hand. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of
remand order to the detenu, has impaired his Constitutional right to make
an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention
order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a
safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We,
therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.45/S.O/2024, dated 18.11.2024
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ajaikumar,
S/o.Pothuraja, aged about 18 years, is directed to be released forthwith
unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
8. Further, on a perusal of the Booklet, we also find that the
accused had been produced for remand on 03.10.2024 at 10.30.a.m.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Manamadurai, but the remand
order does not contain the Court seal. Hence, Registry may issue a
communication to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, who
was functioning on 19.09.2024 and 03.10.2024 and call for explanation
as to why there was no Court seal affixed in the remand order of the
accused in Crime No.12 of 2024, which had been registered in AWPS,
Mamamadurai, Sivagangai District. The explanation to be forwarded to
this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
9. List the matter on 22.10.2025 under the caption “for
compliance/explanation of the Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai”.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
06.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
ORDER MADE IN
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 03:02:42 pm )
