Madras High Court
Deivam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.571 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.571 of 2025
Deivam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By,
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai 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, connected
with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.
03/2025 dated 08.02.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Deivam,
S/o.Seenithevar, aged about 60 years, now detained as “Drug Offender”
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.571 of 2025
at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Deivam, S/o.Seenithevar,
aged about 60 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by Detention Order in Detention Order No.03/2025 dated
08.02.2025 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
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on
the ground that the detenu has not been furnished with a translated copy
of the 'Forensic Report' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page Nos.111 and 112 of the booklet Volume-I in the
vernacular language, though the detenu sought for Tamil version by
giving representation, dated 07.05.2025. Hence, it is submitted that the
detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet-Volume-I, it is seen that Page
Nos.111 and 112 and of the Booklet Volume-I, which is the Forensic
Report furnished to the detenu is in English version. Though the detenu
has given a representation dated 07.05.2025 sought Tamil Version of
Forensic Report and the same has not been furnished in the vernacular
language. This non-furnishing of Tamil Version of the vital document
would deprive the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
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. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of
Forensic Report 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Detention Order No.03/2025 dated 08.02.2025
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Deivam,
S/o.Seenithevar, aged about 60 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.)
18.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai 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 05:36:01 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
ORDER MADE IN
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:36:01 pm )
