Madras High Court
Ponnammal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.317 of 2025
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.317 of 2025
Ponnammal ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by it's Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... 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 second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.
31/S.O/2024 dated 08.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.317 of 2025
Muthu, aged about 24 years, son of Ganesan and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sekar
for K.Vignesh Kumar
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 mother of the detenu viz., Muthu, aged
about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent
by Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.31/S.O/2024, dated 08.10.2024 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.
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. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on remand
extension order and the Judicial Form No.14, which are available at Page
Nos.23 to 25 of the booklet and it is in English language and also the bail
application order, which is available at Page Nos.48 to 50 of the booklet
and it is in English language. Though the petitioner asked for translated
copy of the same in the vernacular language, the same have not been
furnished by the Detaining Authority. 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 remand extension order and the Judicial Form No.
14 relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.23 to 25 of the
booklet and the bail application order, which is available at Page Nos.48
to 50 of the booklet, in vernacular language, have not been furnished to
the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-furnishing of the
said documents 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: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 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 413, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
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 remand extension order, Judicial Form No.14 and
the bail application order, 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 fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.31/S.O/2024, dated 08.10.2024, by
the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Muthu,
S/o.Ganesan, aged about 25 years, who is now detained in Central
Prison, Madurai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence
or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
8. We have to mention that among other responsibilities, it is
also the duty of the sponsoring authority to ensure that the proper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
translated version of all the documents are put up before the detaining
authority. We could understand if improper translation had been given
either on not understanding the hand writing of the officers or owing to
lack of legal knowledge of the words to be translated.
9. In this case, the remand extension order of the accused
and the order dismissing the bail petition of the accused have not been
translated. The reasons for not translating them requires serious
examination.
10. We would therefore, call upon the Superintendent of
Police, Sivagangai District to examine the order passed by us in this
Habeas Corpus Petition and seek necessary explanation from the
Sponsoring Authority / Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Karaikudi and take a decision whether to initiate further departmental
action.
11. Additionally, we would call for a further affidavit to the
Detaining Authority/ District Collector, Sivagangai to inform whether
there is a translation unit in the Collectorate Office specifically for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
translating documents relating to detention orders from English to Tamil
and if not, why steps have not been taken to ensure that proper translated
versions of all documents are forwarded before the detention order is
passed.
12. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of
Tamil Nadu, Chennai is also to give a report whether in each District
there is a translation unit available as most of the detention orders are
quashed on the ground of improper translation or omission to transfer the
documents from English to Tamil and this leads us to infer that either
improper translation or omission to translate is deliberate.
13. Call the matter on 15.10.2025 for report from the
Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, the District Collector/District
Magistrate, Sivagangai District and the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
17.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
am
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 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 05:04:23 pm )
