Madras High Court
Vasanth vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1653 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.1653 of 2025
Vasanth ... Petitioner/Detenue
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention
order in Cr.M.P.No.35/Drug Offender/2025 C1 dated 12.07.2025 in detain
the detenue under 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Drug Offender
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
H.C.P.No.1653 of 2025
and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue
Vasanth son of Krishnamoorthi aged about 28 years who is detained at
Central Prison Coimbatore before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the detenue himself, namely,
Vasanth, S/o.Krishnamoorthi, aged about 28 years, detained at Central
Prison, Coimbatore has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 12.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
Cr.M.P.No.35/Drug Offender/2025 C1, branding him as a "Drug Offender",
as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 07:27:17 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 there was no translated version of the Arrest
Intimation Memo at Page No.14 of Vol.I furnished to the detenue. This
deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the
sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
non-supply of the translated version to the detenue.
5. On perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly in Page No.14 of the booklet (Vol.I), the translated copy of the
Arrest Intimation Memo has not been furnished to the detenue. 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'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
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 detenue 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
detenue, 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 detenue 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 detenue'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 detenue, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenuee 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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
Cr.M.P.No.35/Drug Offender/2025 C1 dated 12.07.2025, is hereby set
aside. The detenue, viz., Vasanth, S/o.Krishnamoorthi, aged about 28 years,
who is now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode 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.1653 of 2025
30.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
