Madras High Court
Nirmaladevi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD)No.301 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.301 of 2025
Nirmaladevi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep By,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records
connected with the detention order in Detention order No.1 of 2025 dated
14.01.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.301 of 2025
and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
petitioner's husband namely Perumal, aged about 38 years, Son of
Karuppiah, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu namely Perumal, Son
of Karuppiah, aged about 38 years. The detenu had been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.01/2025 dated
14.01.2025, holding him to be a “Sexual Offender” as contemplated
under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is
under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 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 has not been furnished with a
translated copy of the 'remand extension order' relied on by the Detaining
Authority, more particularly at Page No.75 of the booklet Volume-I, in
the vernacular language. 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 No.75 of
the Booklet Volume-I, which is the remand extension order, furnished to
the detenu is in English version. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of
the said vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective
representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
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, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
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 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
remand extension order 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: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Detention Order No.01/2025 dated 14.01.2025,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Perumal,
son of Karuppiah, aged about 38 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.]
22.09.2025
vsm
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
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: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
22.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
