Arun Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Detention order No.06/2025 dated 25.02.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Arun,

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025

¶18

son of Tamilselvan, aged about 27 years, now detained as "Drug Offender" at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner is the detenu namely Arun, Son of Tamilselvan, aged about 27 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.06/2025, dated 25.02.2025, holding him to be a “Drug Offender” as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶24

2 . We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

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

¶26

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025

¶29

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 has not been furnished with a translated copy of the 'Remand Order and the Remand Extension Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.106 and 107 of the booklet Volume-I, written in English. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶30

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.106 & 107 of the Booklet Volume-I, which is the Accident Register, furnished to the detenu is in English version. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of the said vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶31

5 . In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶33

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

¶34

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025

¶35

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:

¶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 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

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025

¶40

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 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.''

¶42

6 . We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of remand order and remand extension order 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.

¶43

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025

¶46

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and

¶47

the order of detention in Detention Order No.6/2025, dated 25.02.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Arun, son of Tamilselvan, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 23.09.2025

¶49

am

¶50

NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶52

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

¶53

H.C.P.(MD)No.630 of 2025