Punitha v. The Secretary to the Government,

ORDER (made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Sudhakaran, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Gobu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.02.2026 in C.O.C.No.03/2026 branding him as "Bootlegger" 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].

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Page3 of 6

¶3Though 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 memo at Page No.15 in Volume-II of the booklet, which was relied on by the authorities, was furnished to the detenu other than the language known to him and therefore, the same has prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶4A perusal of the booklet would disclose that the translated version of the arrest memo at Page No.15 in Volume-II of the booklet relied on by the detaining authority were not furnished to the detenu in a language known to him, thereby, the detenu has been put to prejudice and is deprived of making an effective representation for revocation of the detention order. The non-furnishing of translated version of document(s) 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. Page4 of 6 In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in dated 10.02.2026 in C.O.C.No.03/2026 is hereby set aside. The detenu Sudhakaran, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Gobu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsd Page5 of 6 To

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

¶2District Collector and District Magistrate of Mayiladuthurai district, Mayiladuthurai.

¶3The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶4The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶5The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai PEW, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶6The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai. HCPoNo.o513oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMARoJ. AND K.RAJASEKARoJ. nsd HCPoNo.o513oofo2026 19-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Punitha W/o.Gobu, Mariyamman Kovil East Street, Konerirajapuram Village and Post, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Mayiladuthurai district, Mayiladuthurai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 5. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai PEW, Mayiladuthurai District. ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 6 Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 10.02.2026 in C.O.C.No.03/2026 against the petitioner's son Sudhakaran, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Gobu, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side)