Madras High Court
Vijayarani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 2031 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. 1250 of 2025
1. VIJAYARANI
W/o.Sekar, No.1/61, Sedhupathi Nagar,
Paramakudi, Kattuparamakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its
Secretary,Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
J-13, Tharamani Police Station,
Chennai - 600 113.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
HCP No. 2031 of 2025
PRAYER
To issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of a writ of Hableas Corpus petition to call for the entire
records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 vide detention order dated 13.05.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent in
pursuance of his order No.254/BCDFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
son namely Thiru.Harikrishnan, S/o.Sekar, aged 24 years before this Court and
set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son
detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Meganathan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional
Public Prosecutor For
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu, J.
S.Sounthar,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Harikrishnan, S/o.Sekar,
aged 24 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent in No.254/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.05.2025, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
and Video Pirates Act, 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 Memo of Evidence was not translated in tamil version. Hence,
it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly state that the Memo
of Evidence was not translated in tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that at Volume-II page 14-15,
the Memo of Evidence, furnished to the detenue, was not translated 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
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999)
2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
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: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 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.”
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. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention
order passed by the second respondent in No.254/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated
13.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz., Harikrishnan, Son of Sekar,
aged about 24 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is
required in connection with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.)(S.SOUNTHAR J.)
14-10-2025
vsi
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
J-13, Tharamani Police Station,
Chennai - 600 113.
5. The Joint Secretary, Law & Order Dept., Secretariat,Chennai-9
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
vsi
14-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:18 pm )
