Bairavi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent made in his proceedings in PD No.05 of 2025 dated 02.02.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Gonnda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Kazhuku Mandaiyan @ Ajith, son of Ganesan, male aged about

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

H.C.P.(MD) No.632 of 2025

¶16

24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this court and set him at liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Kazhuku Mandaiyan @ Ajith, Son of Ganesan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent vide his order dated 02.02.2025 in PD No.05 of 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.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD) No.632 of 2025

¶27

quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with improper translation of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.40 of the booklet and the Remand Order, furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶28

On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.40 of the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenu, has not been properly translated in the vernacular language. In English version, it is stated that “ the alleged offence is serious in nature ” whereas in Tamil version, which is at Page No.41, it has been stated as “$wg;gLk; Fw;wk; ,aw;iff;F vjpuhdJ.” Again, it has been been stated that “ medical memo found as fit for remand” . In Tamil version, it has been stated as “Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lthpd; kUj;Jtf; Fwpg;G tprhuizf;F jFjpahdJ MFk;. NkYk; Fw;wr; nray;fisj; jLg;gJ kw;Wk; epahakhd tprhuizf;fhf ePjpkd;w fhtypy; itf;f Nfhhpf;if jpUg;jpfukhf cs;sJ.”This improper translation in vernacular language would deprive the detenu from making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶30

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

¶31

H.C.P.(MD) No.632 of 2025

¶32

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:

¶33

''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

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

H.C.P.(MD) No.632 of 2025

¶37

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.

¶38

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.''

¶39

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

¶40

all force to the case on hand. The improper translation of remand order 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.

¶41

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.(MD) No.632 of 2025

¶44

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order

¶45

of detention in PD No.05 of 2025 dated 02.02.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Kazhuku Mandaiyan @ Ajith, son of Ganesan, male aged about 24 years is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶46

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 13.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No RR To:

¶47

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9..

¶48