Madras High Court
Prakasam vs The State Rep. By Its on 13 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1655 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1655 of 2025
Prakasam ... Petitioner/Detenue's Father
-vs-
The State Rep. by its
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem City.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem-636 007. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of
Detention dated 02.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in
C.M.P.No.11/Goonda/Salem City/2025, quash the same and produce the
detenue, Thamaraiselvan, aged about 35 years, S/o.Prakasam, before this
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
H.C.P.No.1655 of 2025
Court and set him at liberty and the detenue now confined in Central Prison
Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Mario Johnson
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,
Thamaraiselvan, S/o.Prakasam, aged about 35 years, detained at Central
Prison Salem, has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention
order dated 02.04.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.11/Goonda/salem City/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
argument on the ground that there was no translated version of the
particulars of witness examined in the Final Report at Page No.151 of Vol.I
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-supply of translated version to the detenue.
5. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly
in Page No.152 of the booklet (Vol.I), the translated copy of the particulars
of witness examined in the Final Report 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
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
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
of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
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 C.M.P.No.11/Goonda/salem City/2025 dated 02.04.2025, is hereby set
aside. The detenue, viz., Thamaraiselvan, S/o.Prakasam, aged 35 years,
who is now confined in the Central Prison, Salem is hereby directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
other case.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
13.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem City.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem-636 007.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:54 pm )
