Allowed¶43

R.Tamilselvi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC4 Nov 2025HCP(MD)/422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decision dated 16.09.2025 (signature date 04.11.2025): habeas corpus petition by R. Tamilselvi, wife of detenu Rajasekaran, against preventive detention as 'Goonda' (Section 2(f), Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) under detention order BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025; detention quashed because the Accident Register copy was improperly translated, impairing the detenu's Article 22(5) right to effective representation; Supreme Court precedent Powanammal (1999) 2 SCC 413 relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu Rajasekaran S/o. Subbaiah, aged 34 years, directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ¶43

R.Tamilselvi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention order set aside; detenu Rajasekaran S/o. Subbaiah, aged 34 years, directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Accident Register copy supplied to the detenu was not completely translated, thereby depriving him of the ability to make an effective representation against the detention.

¶25

Court's answer

The non-furnishing of the properly translated Tamil version of the Accident Register impaired the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation against the preventive detention order, a safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India; relying on Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, the court found this rendered continued detention unsustainable and had no hesitation in quashing the detention order.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed; the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the detenu Rajasekaran S/o. Subbaiah, aged 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) — Preventive detention as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 — Detention order BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025 passed by the District Collector/District Magistrate, Madurai — Page No.25 of the booklet furnished to the detenu, the 'Accident Register' dated 02.02.2025 given by the Medical Officer at GRH, Madurai, had been improperly translated by the sponsoring authority — Improper translation deprives the detenu of making an effective representation against the order of detention, a safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India — Court relied on Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 — Detention order quashed and set aside; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detenu Rajasekaran S/o. Subbaiah directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

R.Tamilselvi

...Petitioner

vs.

The State of Tamilnadu

¶11

Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, St. George Fort, Chennai- 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector/District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

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 passed by the 2^nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Rajasekaran S/o.Subbaiah aged about 34 years (now detained at Central Prison, Madurai) before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Rajasekaran aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order dated 09.03.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 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.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶23

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Accident Register copy has not been

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶29

completely translated.

¶30

On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.25 of the Booklet, which is the 'Accident Register' dated 02.02.2025 of the deceased as given by the Medical Officer at GRH, Madurai, furnished to the detenu, had been improperly translated by the sponsoring authority. This improper translation would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶31

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:

¶32

''9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶34

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

¶35

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶36

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.

¶37

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.''

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶39

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

¶40

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶41

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in

¶42

all force to the case on hand. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of accident register 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.

¶43

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.12/2025 dated 09.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. the detenu, Rajasekaran S/o. Subbaiah, aged 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶44

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 04.11.2025

¶45

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶46

Page 5 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

H.C.P.(MD) No.422 of 2025

¶49

¶50