Madras High Court
Keerthana vs The State Represented By Its on 14 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1704 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
HCP No. 1704 of 2025
1. Keerthana, F/30 years,
W/o.Raman, Puliyanur Village,
Singarapettai Post, Uthangarai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State represented by its
The Chief Secretary to Government (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of
Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District
Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri.
1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
HCP No. 1704 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police
Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India to issue a Writ or Order or Orders or Direction particularly
in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records pertaining
to the order of detention dated 09.06.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent in
S.C.No.15/2025 and Quash the same and produce the detenue, Raman S/o
Chinnapaiyan aged about 34 years, before this Honble Court and set him at
liberty and the detenue is now confined in Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Mario Johnson
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.,Raman S/o
Chinnapaiyan aged about 34 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 husban, branding him as "Sexual
Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
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.
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.22 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.
3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
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 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
4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
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
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 S.C.No.15 of 2025 is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Raman S/o
Chinnapaiyan, aged about 34 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.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
14-10-2025
ASI
5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
To
1. The Chief Secretary To Government (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.600009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri
4.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Singarapettai Police Station,
Krishnagiri.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ASI
14-10-2025
7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:07 pm )
