Mrs.Gowri v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Gowri ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District 3.The Superintendent of Police Erode District 4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Coimbatore 5.Circle Inspector of Police Bhavani Police Station Erode District Crime No.140 of 2025 ... Respondents

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband namely Gowrishankar, S/o.Ganesh, aged 22 years vide detention order dated 13.04.2025, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in the proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.16/Goonda/2025-C1 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the person of the detenu, before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, viz. Gowrishankar, aged about 22 years, S/o.Ganesh, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.04.2025 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.18, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 09.01.2025 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 Nos.62 and 63 of the booklet, a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.18, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 09.01.2025 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 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 13.04.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.16/Goonda/2025 C1, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gowrishankar, aged about 22 years, S/o.Ganesh, detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.] 24.07.2025 kas Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District 3.The Superintendent of Police Erode District 4.The Superintendent of Central Prison

Coimbatore 5.Circle Inspector of Police Bhavani Police Station Erode District Crime No.140 of 2025 6.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas 24.07.2025