Madras High Court
Musthirijohn vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1294 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.1294 of 2025
Musthirijohn ... Petitioner/Mother of detenue
-vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem District.
4. State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the
petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention
order dated 15.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made in
proceedings C.M.P.No.22/Goonda/Salem City/2025, quash the same as
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
H.C.P.No.1294 of 2025
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioner's son, namely, Mustafa, S/o.Noor Ahamed, aged 30 years before
this High Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now
the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, namely
Mustafa, S/o.Noor Ahamed aged about 30 years, detained at Central Prison,
Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
dated 15.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.22/Goonda/Salem City/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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 Nos.27 & 27 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 Nos.27 & 28 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
..... 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.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
Proceedings No.C.M.P.No.22/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dated 15.05.2025 is
hereby set aside. The detenue, viz., Mustafa, S/o.Noor Ahamed, aged 30
years, who is now confined in the Central Prison Salem, 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.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1294 of 2025
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 02:59:20 pm )
