Allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Nov 2025HCP(MD)/858/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by the mother of a detenu held as a Goonda under a preventive detention order. The remand extension order was mistranslated, showing a wrong crime number in the Tamil version. Following Powanammal, the court found this impaired effective representation and quashed the detention order, directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order BCDFGISSSV No.19/2025 dated 31.03.2025 set aside; detenu Alagurajesh to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

Dhanalakshmi

... Petitioner

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9..

¶12

The District Magistrate And District Collector,, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

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 detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2025 dated 31.03.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu the peitioner's son Alagurajesh, S/o..Seenivasan aged about 24 years now

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶19

detained at Central Prison, Madurai, before this court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan for Mr.A.Yasarkhan 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 mother of the detenu Alagurajesh aged about

¶24

24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent vide his order dated 31.03.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2025 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.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

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

¶27

Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶31

quashed on the ground that in the remand extension order, it has been translated defectively.

¶32

On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that in the remand extension order, the crime number had been given correctly in English version as Crime No.93/2025. However, in the translated version, it had been given as Crime No.230/2024. This discrepancy would deprive the detenu from making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶33

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:

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶35

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

¶36

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶37

''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 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

Page 4 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶42

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand. The improper translation of remand extension 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.

¶43

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2025 dated 31.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Alagurajesh S/o.Seenivasan, aged 24 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.] 13.11.2025

¶45

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No RR

¶46

Page 5 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶49

To:

¶50

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

¶51

The District Magistrate And District Collector,, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶52

The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶53

4.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai.

¶54

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶55

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶56

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

¶57

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶58

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶59

¶60

H.C.P.(MD) No.858 of 2025

¶61

13.11.2025

¶62

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶63

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

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rufiya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs G.Moorthy

R.Banumathi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Bairavi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs M.Murugamani

B.Selvakumar Vs S.Balan