Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 17 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.1574 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1574 of 2024
Selvaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records,
connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Detention
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.1574 of 2024
Order No.103/2024, dated 24.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to prode the body or person of the detenu by name Selvaraj,
son of Late.Muthan, aged about 59 years, now detained as "Sexual
Offender" at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Selvaraj, aged about 59
years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
Detention Order No.103/2024, dated 24.10.2024 holding him to be a
'Sexual Offender', as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
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. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Tamil version of the Medical examination of the
petitioner relating to his potency dated 09.09.2024 had not been supplied.
It is contended that owing to non-furnishing of the Tamil Version, the
petitioner has been put to serious prejudice in not making effective
representation. It is also to be noted that in his representation, he had
very specifically asked for the Tamil Version of the said Medical report,
since several pages of the English version have not been translated and
furnished to him.
4. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the date of arrest was on 09.09.2024 and the date of
passing of the detention order was on 24.10.2024 and that there was a
delay of 45 days from the date of arrest for the detaining authority to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
come to subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner under Act 14 of
1982 and it is contended that there is no proximate link between the date
of arrest and the date of the detention order.
5. The third ground raised is more serious and we would
certainly have to address the same. It is contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the detention order was passed on 24.10.2024 and
in the English version of the detention order, the Government Order had
been mentioned as G.O(D)No.96 Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)
Department, dated 15.04.2024, but in the Tamil version it has been
wrongly mentioned as G.O(D)No.272, Home, Prohibition and Excise
(XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024. It had been further stated in the
English version of the detention order with respect to the crime number
and section of law as Cr.No.14 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 364(A), 376(D) IPC and Section 5(i), 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered by the Dindigul
Rural All Women Police Station. But, in the Tamil version of the
detention order, the crime number and section of law had been stated as
Cr.No.32 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 506(i)
IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) and Section 6 of POCSO Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
registered by the Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station.
Subsequently, the detaining authority had issued an amendment on
28.10.2024 correcting the Government Order from G.O(D)No.96 Home,
Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 15.04.2024 to G.O(D)
No.272 Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated
14.10.2024. There was a further amendment with respect to the crime
number as given in English version from Cr.No.14 of 2024 to Cr.No.32
of 2024. The offences were also amended from Sections 364(A), 376(D)
IPC and Section 5(i), 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 to Sections 450, 506(i) IPC and Section 5(i), 5(n),
5(j)(ii) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
@ 450, 506(ii) IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Similar corrections were also
made in the Tamil version, wherein, originally the crime number given
was Cr.No.32 of 2024 and the offences have been altered as stated above.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is a duty cast upon the detaining authority to forward the
amended detention order to the Government for approving the detention
order. In this case, the Government while approving the detention order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
dated 24.10.2024 and not the amended order. Further, when the matter
was examined by the Advisory Board again, the original detention order
dated 24.10.2024 alone had been forwarded and not the amended version
as amended by the order dated 28.10.2024. It is therefore, contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order has strictly
not been approved by the Government in the manner known to law by
appreciating and examining of all relevant documents. We find much
force in these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents argued that there was one alteration of the provision of
the law before the trial Court, which was on 13.09.2024, wherein,
offences under Section 506(ii) and 450 IPC had been included. But even,
that alteration was prior to the detention order dated 24.10.2024 and
should have been mentioned atleast in the detention order dated
24.10.2024. More, surprisingly, in both the Tamil and English versions
even the crime number had been given differently. In the English version,
the crime number had been stated as Cr.No.14 of 2024, whereas, in the
Tamil version it has been stated as Cr.No.32 of 2024. We hold that these
glaring mistakes have certainly prevented the detenu in making an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
effective representation challenging the detention order passed to detain
him under the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.
8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Moun Mary vs. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District and others reported in (2007) 1 LW (Crl) 132,
wherein, under the same circumstances, the Division Bench has held as
follows:
"9. It is a matter of shock and surprise to
note that the amended order passed on 26.06.2006, was
never placed before the Government by the detaining
authority. So far as the amended order is concerned, it is
pertinent to point out that the approval of the first order
dated 19.6.2006 was made by the Government on
29.6.2006. Thus, what has been now approved by the
State is the order dated 19.6.2006 and not the amended
order. That apart, whenever an order is passed by the
detaining authority like this, time stipulation will be
available for making the representation, and the detenu
must be put on notice that he is having 12 days time,
within which he could make the representation, if he so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
desires. In the instant case, it is available in the order
dated 19.6.2006, but not in the amended order. Thus, it
was not made known to the detenu that after amending
the order, he is also having sufficient time to make his
representation. Thus, the order lacks legally in all
respects as mentioned above. In such circumstances, the
Court has no hesitation to set aside the order.
9. With respect to the second ground raised, namely that the
date of arrest was 09.09.2024 and the date of detention order was
24.10.2024, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that various
documents had to be obtained including the DNA report even though
charge sheet has been filed. It was contended that the detaining authority
had to collect the documents from the medical professionals whether the
medical examination done and therefore, there were acceptable reasons
for the delay in passing the detention order. It is also emphasised that
since the offence was aggravated penetrative sexual assault leading to
impregnancy, the detaining authority necessarily had to collect the
materials before coming to subjective satisfaction before passing the
detention order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
10. We would accept the reason advanced. We find much
force in the particular contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
11. With respect of non-furnishing of the Tamil version of
the medical examination report of the petitioner, we hold that this is also
a serious infraction directly affecting the detenue from making effective
representation.
12. In view of all these irregularities, we have no hesitation
in quashing the order of detention. We would however clarify that the
detention order alone is quashed and we have not entered into any
discussion on the gravity of the offence or on other aspects, which are
normally taken into consideration while considering grant or otherwise
of bail.
13. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in No.103/2024, dated 24.10.2024, by the 2nd
respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Selvaraj,
S/o.Late.Muthan, aged about 59 years, who is now detained in Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
Prison, Madurai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence
or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
17.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
am
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:22 pm )
