Madras High Court
Rojavathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1023 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.1023 of 2025
Rojavathi ... Petitioner/Detenue's wife
-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
O/o.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
5. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
H.C.P.No.1023 of 2025
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
Impugned Order of Detention passed by the 2nd respondent in
D.O.No.C2/15/2025 dated 10.05.2025 and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ayyanar,
S/o.Ranganathan aged about 41 years, the petitioner's husband now
confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Honourable Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, namely
Ayyanar, S/o.Ranganathan aged about 41 years, detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order dated 10.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
D.O.No.C2/15/2025, branding him as "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: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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 there was no translated version of the Forensic
Examination Report in Page No.14 of Vol.II in vernacular language
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. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly
in Page No.14 of the booklet (Vol.II), the translated copy of the Forensic
Examination Report in vernacular version has not been furnished to the
detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective
representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second respondent in
D.O.No.C2/15/2025 dated 10.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Ayyanar, S/o.Ranganathan aged 41 years, who is now confined in the
Central Prison, Cuddalore 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
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
1. The Secretary to Government (Home),
State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
O/o.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
5. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1023 of 2025
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
