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.2327 of 2025 Santhanadevan ... Petitioner/Brother of the detenu Versus

1. The State represented by The Secretary to Government (Home)

Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009

2. The District Collector / District Magistrate Villupuram District Villupuram

3. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District Villupuram

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Cuddalore

5. The Inspector of Police AWPS Villupuram Police Station Villupuram District .. Respondents (Cr.No.77 of 2025)

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of pertaining to the order of detention dated 07.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.C2/34/2025 and quash the same and produce the detenu Mr.Santhamoorthi, S/o.Masilamani, aged about 32 years, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty and the detenu is now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashokkumar 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 brother of the detenu Santhamoorthy, S/o.Masilamani, male, aged about 32 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.07.2025 bearing reference Rc.No.C2/34/2025 slapped on his brother, branding him as "Sexual Offender" 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 points have been raised in the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the hearing submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated to Tamil, which prevented the detenu from making an effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.19 of the booklet furnished to the detenu contains the Arrest Intimation Form, but the same was not properly translated to Tamil. As the detenu is conversant only with Tamil, the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

5. 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 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 detenue 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 detenue's complaint of non-supply of document h