Ganesan v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR Ganesan S/o Thiyagaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretary, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur 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 2nd respondent dated 22.05.2025 in C.No.31/D.O/Tiruppur City/2025 against
the petitioner's son Panneerselvam, M/28 years, Son of Ganesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and S.Sounthar,J The petitioner is the father of the detenu, viz., Paneerselvam, aged 28 years, S/o Ganesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.No.31/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2025 dated 22.05.2025, 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] read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.103, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated
11.04.2025 under section 3(2) of the aforesaid 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 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 detenu was furnished with illegible copies in Page No.43 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.43 of the booklet i.e. list of property sent to Magistrate, furnished to the detenu, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies 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 '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 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 22.05.2025 in C.No.31/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Panneerselvam, S/o.Ganesan, aged about 28 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.) 19.09.2025 vsi
To
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretary, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi 19-09-2025