Selvi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Selvi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Palaiyur Police Station, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 31.01.2025 in C.O.C.No.03/2025 against the petitioner's son namely Vallarasu, Male, aged about 23 years, S/o.Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Vallarasu, aged about 23 years, S/o.Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.01.2025 issued against her son, branding him as "Bootlegger" 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 improper translated copy of forensic examination report. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet particularly in page Nos.35 & 36, it is seen that the forensic examination report is partially in Tamil and partially in English and its proper translated copy in vernacular language has not been furnished to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the 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 the case of '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.
thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of nonsupply 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."
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 31.01.2025 in C.O.C.No.03/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vallarasu, aged about 23 years, S/o.Murugan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 11.06.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Sni
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Palaiyur Police Station, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order), Chennai - 600 009.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sni 11.06.2025