Madras High Court
Eneya vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1150 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1150 of 2025
Eneya ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Chennai-600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
W-7, All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
petitioner's husband detention under Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 21.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
H.C.P.No.1150 of 2025
made in proceedings No.270/BCDFGISSSV/2025 quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the petitioner's
husband, namely, Yesuraj, S/o.Narayanan, aged about 22 years before this
Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention now the
petitoner's husband detained at Cental Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Yesuraj, S/o.Narayanan, aged about 22 years, detained at Cental Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
No.270/BCDFGISSSV/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).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
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
argument on the ground that the translated version of the Remand Order
dated 01.05.2025 as found in Page No.41 & 42 is improper. This deprived
the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole
ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly Page Nos.41 & 42 of the booklet (Vol.I), the Remand Order
dated 01.05.2025 has been improperly translated with regard to the factum
of the case. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective
representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other
case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
6. 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.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in No.270/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Yesuraj, S/o.Narayanan, aged 22 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.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
27.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Chennai-600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
W-7, All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1150 of 2025
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
