Madras High Court
Moganapriya vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1208 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.1208 of 2025
Moganapriya ... Petitioner/Wife of detenue
-vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi Commissionerate Avadi City,
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-7, Tank Factory Police Station,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of
detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.74/BCDFGISSSV/2025
dated 17.05.2025 against the petitioner's husband Anandaraj, male, aged
about 26 years, S/o. Senbagaraj vide his proceedings now confined in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
H.C.P.No.1208 of 2025
Central Prison Puzhal Chennai District and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, namely
Anandaraj, S/o. Senbagaraj aged about 26 years, detained at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai District, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order dated 17.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
Memo No.74/BCDFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2 (f) of 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).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that there was no translated version of the Arrest
Intimation Memo in Page No.21 of Vol.I in vernacular language furnished
to the detenue. This deprived the detenu from making effective
representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable
to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly in Page No.21 of the booklet (Vol.I), the translated copy of the
Arrest Intimation Form in vernacular version has not been furnished to the
detenu. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
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 of th said judgment 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
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.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, The Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second in Memo
No.74/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The
detenu, viz., Anandaraj, S/o.Senbagaraj, aged 26 years, who is now confined
in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
17.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
J.NISHA BANU, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi Commissionerate Avadi City,
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-7, Tank Factory Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1208 of 2025
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
