Madras High Court
Amutha vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1318 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1318 of 2025
Amutha,
W/o Muniyappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Salem,
Salem District.
5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District. ... 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
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
H.C.P.No.1318 of 2025
for the records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu
Act vide detention order dated 10.05.2025 on the file of the second
respondent herein made in proceedings C.M.P.No.46/GOONDA/
2025/(M1) and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Rajasekaran,
S/o Muniyappan, aged 25 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's
son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son is detained at
Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Rajasekaran, S/o
Muniyappan, aged 25 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.46/GOONDA/ 2025/(M1)
dated 10.05.2025, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
Offenders, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
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.121 Home Prohibition and Excise
(XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under section 3(2) of the aforesaid
Act.
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 remand report was not properly translated
in tamil version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of
making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly states
that the remand report has not been translated properly in tamil version.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that in Vol.I at page 112,
the remand report, furnished to the detenue, was not translated fully in
tamil version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making effective
representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
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 detained in any
other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
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 in
C.M.P.No.46/GOONDA/ 2025/(M1) dated 10.05.2025 is hereby set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
aside. The detenu, viz., Rajasekaran, Son of Muniyappan, aged about 25
years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Salem, 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.)
22.09.2025
vsi
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Salem, Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
22-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
