Mariyammal v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC19 Mar 2025HCP/306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court H.C.P.No.306 of 2025, order dated 19.03.2025 by M.S. Ramesh, J. (with N. Senthilkumar, J.): habeas corpus allowed; detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ('Sexual Offender') quashed because the detenu was supplied an improper Tamil translation of the remand warrant, denying effective representation; relied on/followed Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 2 SCC 413 and Article 22[5] safeguards; detenu set at liberty forthwith unless confined in another case.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 28.09.2024 in C.M.P.No.57/Sexual Offender/2024/(M1) passed by the second respondent was set aside, and the detenu Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. ¶¶52

Mariyammal Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished an improper translated (Tamil) copy of the remand warrant, thereby depriving him of the ability to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

¶¶32

Court's answer

On a perusal of the booklet, the Court found that the English copy of the remand warrant was not properly translated in Tamil and that the same improper Tamil translated copy had been furnished to the detenu.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The furnishing of an improperly translated copy of a vital document (the remand warrant) deprives the detenu of making an effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Powanammal) and in view of the aforesaid facts, the detention order was held liable to be quashed.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Art. 226) allowed — preventive detention of Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka (aged about 62), branded a 'Sexual 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], by detention order C.M.P.No.57/Sexual Offender/2024/(M1) dated 28.09.2024 of the District Magistrate/District Collector, Namakkal, set aside. Ground: the English remand warrant was not properly translated into Tamil and the improper Tamil translation was furnished to the detenu, depriving him of an effective representation against the detention order; the Court followed the ratio in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413 on supply of materials in a language understood by the detenu. Detenu ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

¶1

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

Mariyammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District.

¶15

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Hasthampatty, Salem – 7.

¶16

5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. ... Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order in C.M.P.No.57/Sexual Offender/2024/(M1) dated 28.09.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body or person of the brother of petitioner/detenu namely Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka , aged 62 years, S/o.Arulappan, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Subadra Devi

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J. )

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu namely Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka , aged about 62 years, S/o.Arulappan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.09.2024 issued against her brother, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Page 2 of 8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶29

Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶30

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶31

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶32

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 improper translated copy of the remand warrant. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶33

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the English copy of the

¶34

remand warrant is not properly translated in Tamil and the same improper Tamil translated copy has been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of improper translated copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of

¶35

detention.

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶39

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of '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:

¶40

“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

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶44

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.

¶45

..... 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. ”

¶46

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

¶47

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶48

Page 5 of 8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

H.C.P.No.306 of 2025

¶51

7 . Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent

¶52

on 28.09.2024 in C.M.P.No.57/Sexual Offender/2024/(M1), is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka, aged about 62 years, S/o.Arulappan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in

¶53

connection with any other case.

¶54

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]

¶55

19.03.2025

¶56

Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶57

Sni

¶58

Page 6 of 8