Madras High Court
Rani vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its on 7 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1298 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
HCP No. 1298 of 2025
1. RANI
W/o.Srinivasan, No.60, Lal Bahadhur
Sasthiri street, minjur, Thiruvallur
District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George, chennai -
600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, Avadi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central prison puzhal, chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
E-3 Minjur Police station, Avadi
commissionerate.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
HCP No. 1298 of 2025
PRAYER
To issue writ of habeas corpus or direction or order in the nature of writ to
call for the records pertaining to the order in the nature of writ to call for the
records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in
No.79/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 04.06.2025 against the petitioners son
DHAMODHARAN @ GOPI S/O CITTY BABU @ SRINIVASAN, Male aged
25 years now confined in Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this honourable court
and set him at liberty and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): M.Vignesh M.Rajkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional
Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu J.
and
S.Sounthar,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue, viz., Damodharan @ Gopi,
S/o Citty Babu @ Srinivasan, aged 25 years, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.79/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 04.06.2025, branding her as "Goonda" under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates
Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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.
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 report was not properly translated in tamil
version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly states that the
remand report has not been translated properly in tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that in Vol.I at page 38, the arrest
intimation, furnished to the detenue, was not translated fully in tamil version.
Therefore, the detenue 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
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:-
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
..... 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.”
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.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on
04.06.2025 in No.79/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Dhamodharan @ Gopi, aged 25
years, S/o.Cittybabu @ Srinivasan, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.)(S.SOUNTHAR J.)
07-10-2025
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George, chennai -
600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi city, Avadi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
central prison puzhal, chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
E-3 Minjur police station, Avadi
commissionerate.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
vsi
07-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 04:30:17 pm )
