Soundararajan v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.846 of 2025 Soundararajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police O/o the Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai 600 007 3.The Superintendent Central Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 4.State rep. by The Inspector of Police Land Fraud Investigation Wing-1 Gama - 1, Central Crime Branch Greater Chennai 600 007 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.192/ BCDFGISSSV/ 2025, dated 15.04.2025 against the petitioner's mother branding her as "GOONDA" and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's mother Geetha, W/.Kandaswamy, aged about 53 years, now confined at Central Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the son of the detenue viz. Tmt.Geetha, W/o.Kandasamy, aged about 53 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.04.2025 slapped on his mother, branding her 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 Legal heir certificate furnished in Volume I 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 a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page No.107 of the booklet in Volume I, Legal Heir ship Certificate is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore , the detenue is deprived from
making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
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 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 15.04.2025 in No.192/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Tmt.Geetha, W/o.Kandasamy, aged about 53 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 19.08.2025 kas Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non speaking To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police O/o the Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai
Chennai 600 007 3.The Superintendent Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 4.The Inspector of Police Land Fraud Investigation Wing-1 Gama - 1, Central Crime Branch Greater Chennai 600 007 5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas H.C.P.No.846 of 2025 19.08.2025