Madras High Court
Selvam vs The Secretary To The Governement on 23 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1110 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. 1110 of 2025
1. Selvam
S/o. Murugaiyan, Kizhakku Theru,
Kodiyakadu, Vedaranyam Taluk,
Vedaranyam District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to the Governement,
Home prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, chennai - 600009.
2.District collector and District
Magistrate of
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
HCP No. 1110 of 2025
5.The Inspector of Police,
Velipalayam police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
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 to call for the records in
connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent
25.05.2025 in C.O.C.No.16/2025 against the petitioner brother in law,
Thiru.Prakash, male aged 29 years S/o. Ramasamy who is confined at Central
prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce
the detenue before the Hon'ble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Balaji
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR J.
The petitioner herein is the uncle of the detenu viz., Prakash, Male, 29
years, S/o. Ramasamy, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 25.05.2025 slapped on his brother-in-law, branding him as
"Drug Offender" 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other
grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on
the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.120, Home, Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 has not been translated in
vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective
representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be
quashed.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page
Nos.12 and 13 of the Volume – II, a copy of the Government Order in
G.O.(D).No.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated
11.04.2025 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the
same has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived
from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
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.”
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 25.05.2025 in C.O.C.No.16/2025, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Prakash, male, aged
29 years, S/o.Ramasamy, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 01:22:03 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
2.District collector and District
Magistrate of
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Velipalayam police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
6. 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 )
