Non-supply of arrest intimation in detenu's language violates Article 22(5), vitiating preventive detention order.

The sister of the detenu-Sakkarai @ Loganathan, branded as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of theTamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 15.07.2025.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Admittedly, the arrest intimation form, placed at page 17 of volume – 1 of the booklet, supplied to the detenu, has not been translated in the language known to the detenu, which is Tamil. This has deprived the detenu of his right to make an effective representation. In this regard, we may 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 relevant observations are as follows:

“8.The law relating to preventive detention has been crystallized and the principles are well neigh settled. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Art. 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenue but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenue. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. (See Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr., [1969] 1 SCR 227).

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.”

4. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.19/2025 dated 15.07.2025 is set aside.

5. The detenu, viz., Sakkarai @ Loganathan, son of Asirvatham, aged 24 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)

16-04-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note to Registry : Issue Today.

To