Madras High Court
Gopi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD)No.989 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.989 of 2025
Gopi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its
The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009.
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
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records,
connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Detention
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.989 of 2025
Order No.116/2024 dated 05.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the
Respondents to produce the detenu by name Gopi, son of Balu, aged
about 35 years, now confining at Madurai Central Prison before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The petitioner is the detenu namely Gopi, son of Balu, aged
about 35 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent
by his order in Detention Order No.116/2024 dated 05.12.2024, holding
him to be a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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 03:51:49 pm )
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at
Page No.108 of the Booklet Volume-I, in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is
deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the
translated copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at
Page No.108 of the Booklet Volume-I, in vernacular language, has not
been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the
nonfurnishing of translated copy of the said document in the vernacular
language would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an
effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds
that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is
vitiated.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
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 165, wherein the Apex Court,
after 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:
''6. The short question that falls for our consideration
is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of
remand passed in English, a language not known to the
detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
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.
...
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 non-furnishing of translated
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
108 of the Booklet Volume-I, in vernacular language, to the detenu, has
impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation
against the impugned preventive detention order. To be 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 No.116/2024 dated 05.12.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Gopi, son of Balu,
aged about 35 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.]
17.09.2025
vsm
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
To
The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009.
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.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
17.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:49 pm )
