Habeas corpus petition allowed; preventive detention order under Tamil Nadu Goondas Act quashed for non-supply of vernacular translations of relied-upon documents, violating detenu's Article 22(5) right to effective representation.
Detention order quashed; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. ¶¶46
The non-furnishing of translated copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority in vernacular language to the detenu impairs his constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5), vitiating the detention order. ¶¶45-46
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.247 of 2025
Duraichi
... Petitioner
vs.
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 of the respondent No.2 in M.H.S.Confdl No.202/2024 dated 02.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Selvam alias Tamilselvam, son of Murugan, aged about 25 years, now detained in
Page No.1 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi 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 the detenu namely, Selvam alias Tamilselvam, son of Murugan, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.202/2024 dated 02.12.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Page No.2 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
Page No.3 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
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:
''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
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
Page No.4 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
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.''
all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated
Page No.5 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
copy of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos. 57 and 71 of the Booklet Volume-I, in 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.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 11.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala
Page No.6 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
To:
Page No.7 of 8
HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.247 of 2025 DATED : 11.08.2025
Page No.8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the failure to provide translated copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority (at Page Nos. 57 and 71 of Booklet Volume-I) in the vernacular language to the detenu violates his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the preventive detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.¶¶26-27
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduApplied¶¶40-41
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
How this case reached the court
Detention order in M.H.S.Confdl No.202/2024 dated 02.12.2024 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, holding the detenu to be a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982¶¶21
District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli · 02.12.2024
Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the detention order¶¶13
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009¶¶10
A.Thiruvadi Kumar
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli-9¶¶11
A.Thiruvadi Kumar
The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District¶¶12
A.Thiruvadi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
