Allowed

N.Dhandapani v. the Additional Chief Secretry to Government

Madras HC21 Apr 2025HCP/94/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of a detenu under Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982. The court quashed the detention order dated 16.12.2024 because the vital memo of evidence relied upon was not fully translated into Tamil, depriving the detenu of the right to make an effective representation as per supremacy of Article 22.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.1254/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 16.12.2024 was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

N.Dhandapani Vs the Additional Chief Secretry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.94 of 2025

¶7

N.Dhandapani ... Petitioner/ father of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Additional Chief Secretry To Government Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

¶10

2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai Office Of Commissioner Of Police Goondas Section Vepery, Chennai 600 007

¶11

3.The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066

¶12

4.The Inspector Of Police Law And Order R-11 Ramapuram Police Station, Bharathi Salai, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 083

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records in Memo

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶18

No.1254/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 16.12.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same, and to consequently direct the respondents to produce the person body of petitioner's son namely Karthikeyan, son of N.Dhandapani, aged 24 years, the detenu herein, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Gopika Nambiar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public proseuctor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶20

ORDER

¶21

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

¶22

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶23

The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Karthikeyan, son of N.Dhandapani, aged 24 years, confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.12.2024 issued against his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶27

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].

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶29

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the memo of evidence has not been properly translated in Tamil. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.

¶30

4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, particularly, in page Nos.37 and 43, this Court finds that the copies of the memo of evidence are placed in both English and Tamil. However, the English version has not been fully translated to its vernacular version. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the improper translation of the copy of the vital document

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶34

relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶35

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 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:

¶36

“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

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶40

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.

¶41

..... 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. ”

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

HCP.No.94 of 2025

¶45

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

¶46

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention

¶47

order is liable to be quashed.

¶48

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by

¶49

the second respondent on 16.12.2024 in Memo

¶50

No.1254/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Karthikeyan, son of N.Dhandapani, aged 24 years, confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any

¶51

other case.

¶52

[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 21.04.2025

¶53

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

¶54

Page 6 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

HCP.No.94 of 2025