IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR H.C.P.No.306 of 2025 Mariyammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Hasthampatty, Salem – 7. 5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order in C.M.P.No.57/Sexual Offender/2024/(M1) dated 28.09.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body or person of the brother of petitioner/detenu namely Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka, aged 62 years, S/o.Arulappan, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)

The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu namely Selvaraju @ Raju @ Sundakka, aged about 62 years, S/o.Arulappan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.09.2024 issued against her brother, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though 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 was furnished with improper translated copy of the remand warrant. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the English copy of the remand warrant is not properly translated in Tamil and the same improper Tamil translated copy has been furnished to the detenu. This furnishing of improper translated copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:

“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 bei