Madras High Court
Neelavathi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD) No.185 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.185 of 2025
Neelavathi ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.185 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 of the second
respondent in P.D.No.42/2024 dated 05.10.2024 and set aside the same
and direct the 3rd respondent to produce the detenue Mr.Thamizh@
Thamizharasan, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 33 years, now confined in Central
Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Mr.Thamizh@
Thamizharasan, aged about 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in P.D.No.42 of 2024, dated 05.10.2024
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be
quashed on the ground that the Accident Register copy has not been
completely translated.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.8 of the
Booklet, which is the 'Accident Register' dated 26.07.2024 of the victim
as given by the Assistant Professor at GPMCH, Pudukkottai, furnished to
the detenu, had been improperly translated by the sponsoring authority.
This improper translation of vernacular language would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the
order of detention.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of
making a 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. The relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
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
nonsupply 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
in all force to the case on hand as we find that the improper translation of
the Accident Register made by the authority concerned, which is available
at Page No.8, in the vernacular language and non-furnishing of legible
of the Booklet. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular
language has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in
Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have
no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in P.D.No.42/2024 dated 05.10.2024 passed by the
second respondent is set aside. the detenue Mr.Thamizh@
Thamizharasan, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 33 years, is directed to be released
forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other
case.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
16.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
CM
16.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:07 pm )
