Madras High Court
J.Tamizharasi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1627 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.1627 of 2025
J.Tamizharasi
W/o Jayaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kariyapattinam Police station,
( i/c) Vettaikkaranirruppu,
Nagapattinam 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 06:41:23 pm )
H.C.P.No.1627 of 2025
for the records in detention order C.O.C.No.9/2025 dated 25.04.2025 on
the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and
direct the respondents to produce the body of person of the petitioner's
son namely Anbuselvan, S/o Annadurai, male 23 years Now detained at
central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Vimala
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the father of the detenu, viz., Anbuselvan, Son of
Annadurai, aged about 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.9/2025 dated
25.04.2025, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982] read with the order
issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.120 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 delegation of power passed in
G.O.(D)No.120 dated 11.04.2025 was not translated in tamil version.
Hence, it is submitted that the detenue was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly state that the
tamil version of G.O.(D).No.120 dated 11.04.2025 has not been
furnished to the detenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the last two pages of
Vol-II of the booklet, i.e.,G.O.(D).No.120 dated 11.04.2025, furnished to
the detenue, was not translated 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
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 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.O.C.No.9/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
dated 25.04.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz., Anbuselvan, Son
of Annadurai, aged about 23 years, who is now confined in the Central
Prison, Cuddalore, 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 Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kariyapattinam Police station,
( i/c) Vettaikkaranirruppu,
Nagapattinam District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
22-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
