Murugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No. 172 of 2025 Murugan ... Petitioner vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in Detention Order No.92/2024 dated 23.12.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents Page No.1 of 7
to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely Murugan, aged about 50 years, S/o. Nataraj, now detained at the Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N. Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Murugan, S/o. Nataraj, aged about 50 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.92/2024 deted 23.12.2024, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
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 Page No.2 of 7
ground that the documents relied on by the 2nd respondent at Page Nos.74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet are in English version and the translated copies have not been furnished to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the translated copies of Page Nos.74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet were not furnished to the detenu.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is found that the translated version of the documents at Page Nos. 74 to 82, Volume I of the Booklet have not been furnished to the detenu. This non furnishing of translated copies of the vital documents 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 Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation Page No.3 of 7
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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: ''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.
...
Page No.4 of 7
...
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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the translated copies of the Page Nos. 74 to 82 have not been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of improper translation in the vernacular language, to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.92/2024 dated 23.12.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan, S/o. Nataraj, aged about 50 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is Page No.5 of 7
required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 14.08.2025 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No trp To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.
Page No.6 of 7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
trp ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No. 172 of 2025 DATED : 14.08.2025 Page No.7 of 7