Kamala v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.11.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Kamala

...Petitioner/Detenue's Wife

-vs1 .The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George Chennai - 600009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.07.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenue Velavan Son of Gunasekran aged about 38 years who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely, Velavan, S/o.Gunasekran, aged about 38 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2/6

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 the translated version of the petition for bail as found in Page Nos.37 & 40 is improper. 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 Page Nos.37 & 40 of the booklet (Vol.I), the petition for bail has not been properly translated entirety with regard to the name of Court. Therefore, the detenu 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 3/6

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. 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 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 4/6

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 2nd respondent in No.509/BBCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz., Velavan, S/o.Gunasekran, aged about 38 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,) 14.11.2025 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

5/6

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ar To:

1 .The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George Chennai - 600009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

14.11.2025 6/6