Habeas corpus petition against preventive detention of a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu detention law. The court found the Remand Order relied on by the detaining authority was improperly translated into Tamil, depriving the detenu of effective representation, quashed the detention order and directed 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.
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
Asina Begam
...Petitioner/Sister of the detenu
Vs.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the Detention Order passed by the second respondent vide her
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
proceedings in C.No.15/Detention/C.P.O./TC/2025, dated 22.02.2025 and quash the same illegal and void and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of detenu Naina Mohamed (Pettai) S/o.Selvam, aged 24 years, who has been termed as "Goonda" and now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J. )
The petitioner is the sister of the detenu, Naina Mohamed (Pettai), aged about 24 years S/o.Selvam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by her order in C.No.15/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 22.02.2025 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Page 2 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Remand Order in English version at Page No.27 is improperly translated in Tamil at Page No.28 of the first booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
28 of the first Booklet, which is the Remand Order, furnished to the detenu, is improperly translated in Tamil. This improper translation of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
_____________ Page 3 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
''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
Page 4 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
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.
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.''
the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that improper translation of Remand Order relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.27 & 28 of the first booklet. This improper translation of the Remand Order has impaired his constitutional
_____________ Page 5 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
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.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 23.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No am
_____________ Page 6 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
To:
Page 7 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR
am
H.C.P.(MD) No.948 of 2025
23.09.2025
_____________ Page 8 of 8_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether improper Tamil translation of the Remand Order relied on by the detaining authority deprived the detenu of his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5), rendering the detenti
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
Asina Begam
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Tiruchirappalli
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli
C.V. Karthikeyan
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
