S.Sethuramadurai vs The Principal Secretary To Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 7282 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7282 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2025

Madras High Court

S.Sethuramadurai vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 19 September, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

H.C.P.No.1259 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

H.C.P.No.1259 of 2025

S.Sethuramadurai,
S/o Sermandurai ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Coimbtore City.

3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Coimbatore.

4. The Inspector of Police,
B-5, Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore City. ... 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 relating to the detention order passed by the second
respondent pertaining to the order made in C.No.86/G/IS/2025 dated
22.05.2025 in detaining the detenu under 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982 as a 'GOONDA' and quash the same and direct the respondent to

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
H.C.P.No.1259 of 2025

produce the detenu, S.Sethuramadurai, Son of Sermadurai, aged about 31
years, who is detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore before the Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J The petitioner / detenu, viz., S.Sethuramadurai, aged 31 years, S/o

Sermadurai, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come

forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the

second respondent in C.No.86/G/IS/2025 dated 22.05.2025, 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.98 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated

11.04.2025 under section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )

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 final report of the first adverse case has not been

properly translated. 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 164 to 167 of the booklet, it is seen that the final report

of the first adverse case has been partially translated and has not been

fully translated. 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 03:01:29 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 {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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )

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.

7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the

detention order passed by the second respondent

respondent in C.No.86/G/IS/2025 dated 22.05.2025 is hereby set aside.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )

The detenu, viz., S.Sethuramadurai, aged 31 years, S/o Sermandurai,

who is now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.) 19.09.2025 vsi To