Arockiyamary vs State Of Tamil Nadu
2025 Latest Caselaw 7292 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7292 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2025

Madras High Court

Arockiyamary vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

H.C.P.No.1323 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.1323 of 2025

Arockiyamary,
S/o Anthony Raj ..Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

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

3.The Inspector of Police,
K-6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station,
Chennai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066. ... 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
269/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.05.2025 against the petitioner's son

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
H.C.P.No.1323 of 2025

and set aside the same and to produce the detenu, Ranjith Kumar @
Felix, S/o Anthony Raj, aged 38 years, who is detained in Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthu kumar

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J

The petitioner is the father of the detenue, viz., Ranjith Kumar @

Felix, S/o Anthony Raj, aged 38 years, 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.269/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.05.2025, 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.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 several points have been raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be

quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible

copies in Page No.12 of Vol.I of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that

the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the observation

mahazar at Page No.12 of Vol-I of the booklet, furnished to the detenu,

is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies 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

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'

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

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 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

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

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.269/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.05.2025 is hereby

set aside. The detenu, viz., Ranjith Kumar @ Felix, S/o Anthony Raj,

aged 38 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.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.) 19.09.2025 vsi To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.