Rojavathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.09.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Rojavathi ... Petitioner/Detenue's wife -vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector O/o.District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

5. The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue 1/6

a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the Impugned Order of Detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.C2/15/2025 dated 10.05.2025 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ayyanar, S/o.Ranganathan aged about 41 years, the petitioner's husband now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

(By J.Nisha Banu,J.) The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Ayyanar, S/o.Ranganathan aged about 41 years, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order dated 10.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in D.O.No.C2/15/2025, branding him as "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2 (ggg) of 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). 2/6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though 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 there was no translated version of the Forensic Examination Report in Page No.14 of Vol.II in vernacular language furnished to the detenue. 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 No.14 of the booklet (Vol.II), the translated copy of the Forensic Examination Report in vernacular version 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.

3/6

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 of th said judgment 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.

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 nonsupply 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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second respondent in D.O.No.C2/15/2025 dated 10.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz., Ayyanar, S/o.Ranganathan aged 41 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,) 12.09.2025 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar J.NISHA BANU, J.

AND S.SOUNTHAR , J.

ar To:

5/6

1. The Secretary to Government (Home), State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector O/o.District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

5. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

12.09.2025 6/6