Muthulakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Pandiyaraja, S/o.Muthuraja, male, aged 24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated

24.12.2025 bearing reference No. 1075/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents.

3.Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that the language known to the detenu is Tamil, but the documents relied on by the authorities were furnished to the detenu other than the language known to the detenu and the same has prevented him from making an effective representation against the Page3 of 4 detention order. Hence the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

4.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.

¶5On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that Page 49 of the booklet, which is the remand extension order, furnished to the detenu, has not been translated in Tamil, thereby the detenu has been put to prejudice and is deprived of making an effective representation for revocation of the detention order. The non-furnishing of translated version of document relied on by the detaining authority, particularly when the detenu is not conversant with the language violates his constitutional rights and can vitiate the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and is liable to be quashed.

6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention bearing reference No.1075/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 24.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely Pandiyaraja, S/o.Muthuraja, male, aged 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No gpa Page4 of 4

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND

K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, EVR Road, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶4The Inspector of Police E-4, Abhiramipuram Police Station, Chennai.

¶5The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 19-08-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Muthulakshmi W/o.Muthuraja, ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, EVR Road, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police E-4, Abhiramipuram Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to call for the entire records from the 2nd respondent in connection with order No. 1075/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dt. 24.12.2025 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son namely Pandiyaraja S/o.Muthuraja, aged 24 years, Page2 of 4 now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms,S.Nadhiya For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)