Amsaveni vs The Secretary To Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 7809 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7809 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2025

Madras High Court

Amsaveni vs The Secretary To Government on 14 October, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

HCP No. 1588 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

H.C.P No. 1588 of 2025

1. Amsaveni, F/ 39 years
W/o. Kalaiselvan, No.160,
Housing Road, Kitchipalayam,
Petitioner(s)
Salem District.

1. The Secretary to Government
(HOME) Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.600009.

2.The Commissioner of Police
Salem City, Salem District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

4.The State rep by its The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District.

Respondent(s)

1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
HCP No. 1588 of 2025

PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Habeas corpus to call for the
entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982, vide detention order, dated 09.06.2025 on the file of the second
respondent herein made in proceedings C.M.P.No.25/Goonda/Salem City/2025,
quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to
produce the petitioner's son namely Ashok @ Pachaikili, S/o Kalaiselvan, aged
about 20 years before this Honble Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty
from detention, now the petitioner son detained at Central Prison, Salem.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. W.Camyles Gandhi

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.NISHA BANU J.

and S.SOUNTHAR J.

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.,Ashok @

Pachaikili, S/o Kalaiselvan, aged about 20 years, confined at Central Prison,

Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order

passed by the second respondent dated 09.06.2025 slapped on her son, 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 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

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 Form was not properly translated into 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 Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated into Tamil version.

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.31 of the Volume-I

of the booklet furnished to the detenu, i.e., Arrest Intimation Form, was not

properly translated into 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

3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )

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.

..... 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

4 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )

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 09.06.2025 in C.M.P.No.25/Goonda/Salem City/2025 is

hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,

Ashok @ Pachaikili, S/o Kalaiselvan, aged about 20 years, confined at

Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his

confinement is required in connection with any other case.