Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1083 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.1083 of 2025
Krishnaveni ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 009.
2. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the District Magistrate and District Collector,
First Floor, Collectorate,
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
3. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Superintendent of Police,
Vadavasi-Kanchipuram Road, Thaiyar Kullam,
Collector Office Campus,
Kanchipuram - 631 501.
4. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 066.
5. State of Tamil Nadu,,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
H.C.P.No.1083 of 2025
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
G-2, Uthiramerur Police Station PEW,
Kancheepuram,Tamil Nadu – 603 403. ... 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 dated 09.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in TPDA 7072 in
Rc.No.454/2025/M6-D.No.15/2025 and quash the same and produce the
detenue, Surya, S/o.Sankar, male, aged about 24 years, who is detained in
Central Prison, Puzhal before this Honble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayasuriya
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, namely
Surya, S/o.Sankar, male, aged about 24 years, detained at Central Prison,
Puzhal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
dated 09.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in TPDA 7072 in
Rc.No.454/2025/M6-D.No.15/2025, branding him as "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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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.
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 Remand Order
dated 13.04.2025 as found in Page Nos.65 to 67 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.65 to 67 of the booklet (Vol.I), the Remand Order dated
13.04.2025 has been improperly translated, as there was omission in the
translation of note portion. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making
effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
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
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 TPDA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
7072 in Rc.No.454/2025/M6-D.No.15/2025 dated 09.05.2025, is hereby set
aside. The detenu, viz., Surya, S/o.Sankar, male, aged 24 years, who is now
confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal 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
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
State of Tamil Nadu,
First Floor, Collectorate,
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Vadavasi-Kanchipuram Road, Thaiyar Kullam,
Collector Office Campus,
Kanchipuram - 631 501.
4. The Superintendent of Prisons,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 066.
5. The Inspector of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
G-2, Uthiramerur Police Station PEW,
Kancheepuram,Tamil Nadu – 603 403.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
ar
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:28:33 am )
