Thamaraiselvi v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1396 of 2024 Thamaraiselvi ... Petitioner vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in MHS.Confdl.No.164 of 2024, dated 02.10.2024, in detaining the detenu under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Ratheesh, Son of Thamodharan, Male aged about 34 years, who is not detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.1 of 7
For Petitioner : Ms.C.R. Ponnuthai 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 mother of detenu viz., Ratheesh, Son of Thamodharan, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in MHS.Confdl.No.164 of 2024, dated 02.10.2024, 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 ground that the detenu was furnished with defective translation copies of the Page No.2 of 7
documents by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.63 Volume - I of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He Would further submit that though the detenu was furnished with defective translation copy at Page No.63 , Volume - I of the booklet viz., remand report, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.63 Volume I of the Booklet viz., remand report, furnished to the detenu, suffers from supply of documents with flawed translation. This furnishing of improper translation 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 Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Page No.3 of 7
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 Page No.
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 as we find that defective translation copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.63, Volume I of the Booklet. This furnishing of defective translation copies 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.
Page No.5 of 7
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in MHS.Confdl.No.164 of 2024, dated 02.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ratheesh, Son of Thamodharan, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 08.07.2025 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No trp To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Thirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.6 of 7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
trp ORDER MADE IN DATED :08.07.2025 Page No.7 of 7