C.Murugan v. The State of Tamilnadu

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu namely Pandi, Son of Chinnathambi, aged about 38 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent by her order in Cr.M.P.No. 09/S.O./2025, dated 23.02.2025, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶2We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶3Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu has not been furnished with a translated copy of the 'remand extension order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.24 of the booklet Volume-I, written in Engligh. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶4On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.24 of the Booklet Volume-I, which is the remand extension order, furnished to the detenu is in English version. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of the said vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶5In 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: ''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. ....

¶16For 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.''

¶6We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand. The non-furnishing of Tamil Version of remand extension order to the detenu, has impaired his Constitutional 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.

¶7In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.09/S.O/2025, dated 23.02.2025 , passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pandi, son of Chinnathambi, aged about 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

23.09.2025

am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To

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

2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Collectorate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. H.C.P.(MD)No.420kofk2025 oC.V.KARTHIKEYANoo,oJo. and oR.VIJAYAKUMARoo,oJo. am H.C.P.(MD)No.420oofo2025

23.09.2025

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 C.Murugan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, (Prohibition and Excise Department) Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Collectorate, O/o.District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.09/S.O/2025 dated 23.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu / petitioner's brother namely Thiru.Pandi S/o.Chinnathambi, aged about 38 years now confined at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vishnu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor