Madras High Court
Babu Lal Devasi vs The State Rep. By The Secretary To ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1060 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1060 of 2025
Babu Lal Devasi,
S/o Gayad Ram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of District Collector, Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Ranipet District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with order made in
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
H.C.P.No.1060 of 2025
No.B3/D.O.No.36/2025 dated 05.05.2025 passed against the petitioner's
co-brother, Kanaram, aged 29 years, S/o Mularam, who is confined at
Central Prison, Vellore and quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thirugnanam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the co-brother of the detenu, viz., Kanaram, aged
29 years, S/o Mularam, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent in No.B3/D.O.No.36/2025 dated 05.05.2025,
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand
offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982] read with the order issued by the
Government in G.O.(D).No.126 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI)
Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the
said Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument that the detenu is origin of Rajasthan State and his mother
tongue is Rajasthani and he knows Rajasthani, Marwri and Hindi
languages, but the remand order, similar case bail petition, bail order and
Government Order were not supplied in the language known to the
detenu. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation.
Therefore, he would state that the detention order is liable to be
quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly, in
Volume-I Page 40 & 41 and Volume-II page Nos.11 to 20 of the booklet,
it is seen that translated version of remand order, bail order in similar
case and the Government Order in tamil has been furnished and not in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
Rajasthani or Marwar or Hindi language. Therefore, the detenu is
deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention
Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in
'(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
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 non-supply 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. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent
respondent in No.B3/D.O.No.36/2025 dated 05.05.2025 is hereby set
aside. The detenu, viz., Kanaram, aged 29 years, S/o Mularam, who is
now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, is hereby directed to be set
at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any
other case.
(J.NISHA BANU, J.) (S. SOUNTHAR, J.)
17-09-2025
vsi
To
1. The State rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of District Collector, Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Ranipet District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
17-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:02 am )
