Madras High Court
Thamarai Selvi vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 23 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1373 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P No. 1373 of 2025
1. Thamarai Selvi
W/o.Mr.Singaraj, No.11, Bharathidasan
Nagar, 2nd Cross Street, Alapakkam,
Porur, Ambattur, Tiruvallur, Tamil
Nadu-600 116.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary ,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Greater Chennai, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, (Goondas
Section), Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
HCP No. 1373 of 2025
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, Tamil
Nadu-600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
R-8, Vadapalani Police Station,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 026.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein and
made in No.277/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 27.05.2025, and to set aside the
same and directing the third respondent to produce the detenue, the petitioners
son Vijay, S/o.Singaraj, Male aged about 24 years, now confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and thereby setting him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.M.Raghuram
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., Vijay S/o. Singaraj,
aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 27.05.2025 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 copy in Page No.76 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 Page No.76 of the booklet
furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy 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' 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
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: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 27.05.2025 in No.277/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vijay,
S/o.Singaraj, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
23-09-2025
ASI
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary ,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Greater Chennai, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, (Goondas
Section), Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
R-8, Vadapalani Police Station,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 026.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ASI
23-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
