Chinnaponnu v. The State of Tamilnadu

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Ramesh @ Alagar S/o.Ammasi, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.S.S.S.V. No.95/2025 dated 09.12.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Page No.2 of 8

¶2We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) 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 accident register given to the detenu has not been translated in vernacular language. In this circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective representation.

¶4On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.15 of the Booklet, is the English version of the accident register which has not been translated in Tamil. Since the specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, this Court finds that the failure to furnish the translated copy of the accident register, vitiates the detention order. Page No.3 of 8

¶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 Page No.4 of 8 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.''

¶6In view of the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶7In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.S.S.S.V.No.95/2025 dated Page No.5 of 8

09.12.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ramesh @ Alagar, son of Ammasi Male, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]

20.07.2026

Index : Yes / No : Yes / No rm Page No.6 of 8 To:

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

2.The District Magistrate cum The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

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

Page No.7 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND

R.POORNIMA, J. rm DATED : 20.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Chinnaponnu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate cum The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents Page No.1 of 8 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.S.S.S.V. No.95/2025 dated 09.12.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Ramesh @ Alagar, son of Ammasi, Male, aged about 22 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side)