T. Eswari v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR T.Eswari ... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9..
2. The District Magistrate And District Collector,, Madurai, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, PEW Melur Police Station, Madurai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.16/2025 dated 16.03.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of
1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the repsondents to produce the detenue namely Karthikraja S/o.Thangavel male aged about 24 years who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai, before this court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Lenin For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Karthikraja aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent vide proceedings in BCDFGISSSV No.16/2025 dated 16.03.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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 ground that the remand order copy has been in free hand and typed version has not been given.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.71 of the Booklet, which is the 'remand order' dated 08.02.2025, furnished to the detenu, which is in free hand English version had not been translated by the sponsoring authority in vernacular language. The non-serving of the translated copy 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 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.
...
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. The non-providing of translated copy of the remand order has impaired the Constitutional right of the detenu 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 BCDFGISSSV No.16/2025 dated 16.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Karthikraja S/o.Thangavel, aged 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 06.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
RR To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9..
2. The District Magistrate And District Collector, Madurai, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, PEW Melur Police Station, Madurai District 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J.
AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RR 06.11.2025