Habeas corpus petition challenging a Goonda preventive detention order on the ground that a vital document in the booklet was not furnished to the detenu with a Tamil translation. Following Powanammal, this court held the omission impaired the detenu's Article 22(5) right and quashed the detention order, directing release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.606 of 2025
Arunabharathi
... Petitioner
vs.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents
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 MHS.Confdl.No.78/2024, dated 01.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Annamalai alias Ranjith, Son of kumar, aged about 24 years, now detained as “Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
Page No.1 of 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Alagumani 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 sister of detenu viz., Annamalai alias Ranjith, Son of kumar, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in MHS.Confdl.No.78/2024, dated 01.10.2024, 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 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
translated copy has not been furnished to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though the translated copy of Page No.113 of the 2nd Booklet has not been served on the detenu, 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.
Page No.3 of 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
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 document in the language known to and understood by
Page No.4 of 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
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.''
Page No.5 of 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Annamalai alias Ranjith, Son of kumar, aged about 24 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.] 17.07.2025
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp
To:
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
Page No.6 of 7
HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.606 of 2025
DATED : 17.07.2025
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether non-furnishing of a translated copy of page No.113, Part II of the booklet supplied to the detenu deprived him of the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) and vitiated
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶5
(1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arunabharathi
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Thenkasi
The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
R. Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
