S.Aruna v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Reb By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR HCP No. 1574 of 2025

1. S.Aruna W/o.Saravanan Prasath, No.100, D-Block, Gandhi Nagar, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 003.

Petitioner(s) Vs

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

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Truiplicane Police Station, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in his proceedings vide order No.294/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated on 30.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the respondents to produce the Petitioner mother in law by name Mala Wife of Saravanan aged about 40 years before this Honble Court now confined in Special Prison For Women, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty and pass such further or other orders which deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

M.Saranya For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.NISHA BANU J.

and S.SOUNTHAR J.

The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the detenue, viz., Mala Wife of Saravanan aged about 40 years, who is confined in Special Prison For Women, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.05.2025 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].

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 illegible copy of the Accident Register found at Page Nos. 10 and 11 of the Volume-II. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the typed sets in Volume-II, it is seen that Page Nos. 10 and 11 of the Volume-II, which is the copy of the Accident Register, furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible 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 '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 30.05.2025 in No.294/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue, viz, Mala, Wife of Saravanan aged about 40 years confined in Special Prison For Women, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in connection with any other case.

(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.) 25-09-2025 Internet: Yes MST To

1. The Scretary to Government, (home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai.

J.NISHA BANU, J.

AND S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST 25.09.2025