Mohan vs The Secretary O The Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 7513 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7513 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2025

Madras High Court

Mohan vs The Secretary O The Government on 26 September, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

H.C.P.No.1547 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

H.C.P.No.1547 of 2025

Mohan
S/o Muthu ..Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Secretary o the Government,
Home,Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.

5. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvannamalai East Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai 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
for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the
second respondent dated 02.06.2025 in D.O.No.24/2025-C2 against the
petitioner's brother Prasanth, male, aged 22 years, S/o Muthu, who is
confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
H.C.P.No.1547 of 2025

respondents to produce the detenue before this court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J The petitioner is the brother of the detenue, viz., Prasanth, aged 22

years, S/o Muthu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore, has come

forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the

second respondent in D.O.No.24/2025-C2 dated 02.06.2025, 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 Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act

14 of 1982] read with the order issued by the Government in

G.O.(D).No.138 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated

11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of section 3 of the said 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )

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 order, remand extension order,

bail application and bail order are not 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 order, remand extension order, bail application and bail

order are not translated in tamil version.

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that at Vol-I page Nos. 27

to 32, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )

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 detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )

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

respondent in D.O.No.24/2025-C2 dated 02.06.2025 is hereby set aside.

The detenu, viz.,Prasanth, aged 22 years, S/o Muthu, who is now

confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, 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.) vsi 26.09.2025

1. The Secretary o the Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.