Madras High Court
Gokila vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD) No.352 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.352 of 2025
Gokila ...Petitioner/Mother of the detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise(XIV) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the detention
order of the second respondent passed in S.R.No. 10/Gooda/2025 dated
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.352 of 2025
19.02.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu namely Nambusaran (aged about 19 years) S/o Muthuvel before
this Court who is detained at the Central Prison, Madurai, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Nambusaran (aged about
19 years) S/o Muthuvel. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in S.R.No.10/Gooda/2025 dated 19.02.2025
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the
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: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
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 Accident Register in English version at
Page No.88 is incompletely translated in Tamil at Page No.90 of the first
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 Page Nos.88 to
90 of the first Booklet, which is the Accident Register, furnished to the
detenu, is incompletely translated in Tamil. This incomplete translation 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
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
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
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: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
...
...
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 as we find that incomplete translation of
Accident Register relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.88 to
90 of the first booklet. This incomplete translation of the Accident
Register 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: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in S.R.No.10/Gooda/2025 dated 19.02.2025 passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nambusaran (aged
about 19 years) S/o Muthuvel, is directed to be released forthwith unless
his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
19.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise(XIV) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CM
19.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
