Madras High Court
Megala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2025
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1710 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1710 of 2025
Megala,
Wife of Boopathi,
No.105, Anna Nagar,
3rd Cross, Ponnammapet,
Salem District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Reptd by its Secretary to Government,
(Home) Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Central Prison, Salem District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Ammapet Police Station,
Salem City. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling
for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
H.C.P.No.1710 of 2025
C.M.P.No.24/GOONDA/Salem City/2025 dated 05.06.2025 passed by
the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's son by name Murali, Son of Boopathi, aged about
20 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
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
The petitioner/mother of the detenu viz., Murali, male, aged 20
years, S/o Boopathy, confined at Central Prison, Salem, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 05.06.2025 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 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 remand extension order was not properly
translated in 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 the remand extension order was not properly translated in Tamil
version.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.51 of the
booklet furnished to the detenu, i.e., Remand extension order, was not
properly translated in 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 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 {as in SCC journal} 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 detenu be set free forthwith
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
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 05.06.2025 in C.M.P.No.24/Goonda/Salem
City/2025/ is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The detenu viz., Murali, S/o.Boopathy, aged about 20 years, confined at
Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless
his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU, J.) (S. SOUNTHAR, J.)
06-10-2025
ASI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
(Home) Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Central Prison, Salem District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Ammapet Police Station,
Salem City.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
ASI
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
