Madras High Court
Latha vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 11 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1425 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1425 of 2025
Latha,
W/o Sundaramoorthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chenni - 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Keelvelur Police Station,
Keelvelur, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
H.C.P.No.1425 of 2025
for records relating to the detention order in C.O.C.No.10/2025 dated
05.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu act 14 of
1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
petitioner's husband Rajini @ Sundaramoorthy S/o Natarajan, aged about
40 years the detenu now confined at Central Prison, ,Cuddalore, and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Bakiyaraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Rajini @
Sundaramoothy, aged 45 years, S/o Natarajan, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent in C.O.C.10/2025 dated 05.05.2025, 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 and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]
read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.120 Home
Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument that certain documents in the booklet has not been properly
translated in vernacular language. The detenue is conversant only in
tamil language. This deprived the detenu from making effective
representation. Therefore, on the sole ground of not properly translating
the grounds of detention and the booklet, the detention order is liable to
be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
part No.2 Page Nos. 55 to 59, the final report and page No.60, P.T. Case
Diary has not been properly translated in tamil version. Therefore, the
detenue is deprived from making effective representation and that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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 and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
respondent in C.O.C.No.10/2025 dated 05.05.2025 is hereby set aside.
The detenu, viz., Rajini @ Sundaramoothy, S/o Natarajan, aged 45
years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is hereby
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in
connection with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU, J.) (S. SOUNTHAR, J.)
11-09-2025
vsi
To
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chenni - 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Keelvelur Police Station,
Keelvelur, Nagapattinam District.
5. The Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
11-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
