Madras High Court
S.M.Pandiyan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1408 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1408 of 2025
S.M.Pandiyan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Jayankondam Sub Division,
Ariyalur District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Udayarpalayam Circle,
Ariyalur District.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention
order in Cr.M.P.No.12/2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
H.C.P.No.1408 of 2025
05.06.2025, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the corpus
of the detenue Vinoth Kumar (M/20), S/o.Pandiyan, who is kept in Central
Prison, Trichirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraiswamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenue, namely,
Vinoth Kumar, S/o.Pandiyan, aged 20 years, detained at Central Prison,
Trichirappalli, has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in
Cr.M.P.No.12/2025, branding him as a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated
under Section 2(ggg) of 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 and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that there was no translated version of the Memo of
Evidence in Page Nos.75 to 78 of Vol.II in vernacular language furnished to
the detenue. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation.
Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
non-furnishing of the translated version of the Memo of Evidence to the
detenue.
5. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly
in Page Nos.76 to 78 of the booklet (Vol.II), the translated copy of the
Memo of Evidence in vernacular version has not been furnished to the
detenue. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
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
detenue 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 detenue, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 of th said judgment 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 detenue 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 detenue's complaint of non-supply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
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
detenue, 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 detenuee 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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT in
Cr.M.P.No.12/2025 dated 05.06.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Vinoth Kumar, S/o. Pandiyan, aged 20 years, who is now confined in the
Central Prison, Trichirappalli is hereby directed to be set at liberty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
09.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat Complex, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai-600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Avadi District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
ar
09.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
