Madras High Court
Esakkiyammal vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD)No.512 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.512 of 2025
Esakkiyammal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep By,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli 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
M.H.S.Confdl No.13/2025 dt 25.01.2025 and quash the same and direct
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.512 of 2025
the respondents to produce the detenu by name Siva Narayanan,
S/o.Thangaraj, aged about 23 years, now detained in Palayamkottai
Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu namely Siva
Narayanan, son of Thangaraj, aged about 23 years. The detenu had been
detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.
13/2025 dated 25.01.2025, holding him to be a “Drug Offender” as
contemplated under Section 2(e) 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: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 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 detenu was furnished with illegible
copy of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page No.65 of the booklet and the Remand Order,
furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the vernacular
language at Page No.71 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the
detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.65 of
the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenu, is
illegible. It is seen that Page No.71 of the Booklet, which is the Remand
Order, furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the
vernacular language. This improper translation of vernacular language
and furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
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 the improper translation of
the Remand Order made by the authority concerned, which is available at
Page No.71, in the vernacular language and non-furnishing of legible
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
of the Booklet. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular
language and illegible copy of remand order 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 M.H.S.Confdl No.13/2025 dated 25.01.2025
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Siva
Narayanan, son of Thangaraj, aged about 23 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: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli 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 05:04:24 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
17.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
