Vasanthi v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Its

ORDER (made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Santhoshkumar @ Nanda, aged 24 years, S/o.Ganesan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.02.2026 in No.09/TNPD/APC/2026 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Page3 of 6

¶3Though 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 arrest intimation at Page No.19 in Volume-I of the booklet, which was relied on by the authorities, was furnished to the detenu other than the language known to him and therefore, the same has prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶4A perusal of the booklet especially Page No.19 in Volume-I of the booklet would disclose that the arrest intimation relied on by the detaining authority has not been properly translated and the same has been furnished to the detenu in a language not known to him, 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(s) 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. Page4 of 6 In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in dated 10.02.2026 in No.09/TNPD/APC/2026 is hereby set aside. The detenu Santhoshkumar @ Nanda, aged 24 years, S/o.Ganesan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsd Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Complex, Chennai – 600009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Officer of Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.

¶3The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600066.

¶4The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Chennai – 600002.

¶5The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai. HCPoNo.o470oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMARoJ. AND K.RAJASEKARoJ. nsd HCPoNo.o470oofo2026 19-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 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 Vasanthi W/o.Ganesan, A19, Anna Street, Ambattur, Tiruvallur - 600053. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Complex, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Officer of Commissioner of Police, Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600066. 4. The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Chennai - 600002. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.09/TNPD/APC/2026 dated 10.02.2026 passed by the Page2 of 6 second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Santhoshkumar @ Nanda, aged 24 years, S/o.Ganesan, who is presently confined in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms.Vindhiya For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side)