Madras High Court
Banupriya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1903 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1903 of 2025
Banupriya ...Petitioner/Detenue's sister
-vs-
1 . The State of Tamil Nadu
The Additional Chief, Reptd. by its
Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai-6
2. The District Magistrate and
the District Collector Namakkal Namakkal
District.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District Namakkal.
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police
Nallur Police Station, Namakkal District. ... 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 passed in his proceedings in C.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2025/M1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
H.C.P.No.1903 of 2025
dated on 02.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and
directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother by name
Anantharaj, S/o. Palanisamy aged about 29 years before this court now
confined in central prison salem and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepakkumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenue, namely,
Anantharaj, S/o. Palanisamy aged about 29 years, detained at Central
Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 02.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2025/M1, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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 Arrest Intimation
Form as found in Page Nos.49 & 51 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.49 & 51 of the booklet (Vol.I), the Arrest Intimation
Form has not been properly translated in its entirety. 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
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution,
observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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 2nd respondent in
C.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2025/M1 dated 02.07.2025, is hereby set aside.
The detenue, viz., Anantharaj, S/o. Palanisamy aged about 29 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
other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
30.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1 . The Secretary to Government (Home),
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai-6
2. The District Magistrate and
the District Collector Namakkal Namakkal
District.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District Namakkal.
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police
Nallur Police Station, Namakkal District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1903 of 2025
30.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
