Meenakshi vs The Secretary To The Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 7290 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7290 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2025

Madras High Court

Meenakshi vs The Secretary To The Government on 19 September, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

H.C.P.No.1132 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.1132 of 2025

Meenakshi
W/o Anthonysamy ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.

4. The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
Chennai – 600 015 ... 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 detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.267/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 20.05.2025 against her son Madhan

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
H.C.P.No.1132 of 2025

and set aside the same and to produce the detenu Mr.Madhan, aged 29
years, S/o Anthonysamy, who is detained in Central Prison II, Puzhal,
Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rafi Babu

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J

The petitioner is the mother of the detenue, viz., Madhan, aged 29

years, S/o Anthonysamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,

Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention

order passed by the second respondent in No.267/BCDFGISSSV/2025

dated 20.05.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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.97 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: 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 adverse case has not been properly

translated. This deprived the detenue 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-II, Page Nos.5 to 8 of the booklet, it is seen that the final

report of the adverse case has been partially translated and hence, it has

not been translated properly. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from

making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by

the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

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

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 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

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

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.

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

detention order passed by the second respondent

respondent in No.267/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 20.05.2025 is hereby

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

set aside. The detenu, viz., Madhan, aged 29 years, S/o Anthonysamy,

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.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.) 19.09.2025 vsi To