Madras High Court
J.Manju vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1107 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1107 of 2025
J.Manju ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 pm )
H.C.P.No.1107 of 2025
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records, pertaining to the order of
detention passed in C.M.P.No.47/Goonda/2025/M1 dated 10.05.2025
passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the
respondents to produce the petitioner's son by name Karthikeyan,
S/o.Jagadeesan aged about 25 years before this Honble court now confined
in Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, namely
Karthikeyan, S/o.Jagadeesan aged about 25 years, detained at Central
Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order dated 10.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.47/Goonda/2025/M1, branding him as "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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 pm )
(Tamil Nadu Act 14, of 1982).
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 Form of Remand
Warrant dated 23.04.2025 as found in Page Nos.123 & 125 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 in Page Nos.123 & 125 of the booklet (Vol.I), the Form of
Remand Warrant dated 23.04.2025 has been improperly translated, as the
name of the District in the address coloum has been improperly mentioned.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 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.”
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
C.M.P.No.47/Goonda/2025/M1 dated 10.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenu, viz., Karthikeyan, S/o.Jegadeesan aged 25 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.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
12.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 pm )
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1107 of 2025
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 06:56:32 pm )
