IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.2130 of 2025 Jayanthi ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Chennai District

3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station Chennai District Crime No.253 / 2025 .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo No.BBCDEFGISSSV No.84/2025 dated 24.07.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner son, namely B.Nareshkumar, aged about 20 years, S/o.Baskar (who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal) before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu B.Nareshkumar, aged about 20 years, S/o.Baskar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.07.2025 bearing reference BBCDEFGISSSV No.84/2025 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].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 arrest intimation enclosed in the booklet was not properly translated in Tamil, which prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

5. The arrest intimation form in English is enclosed at page No.57 of the booklet served on the detenu, but the same translated in Tamil has not been enclosed in the booklet. As the detenu is conversant only in Tamil, the non-furnishing of arrest intimation form in Tamil, deprived him from making an effective representation for revocation of the detention order. Further, 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 this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in '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 is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of the said judgment 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 find