(Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioners husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 23.10.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.M.P.No.89/Goonda/2025 (M1), quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioners husband namely Manishkumar, S/o.Sathiyandira Singh, aged 28 years before this Honble High Court and set the petitioners husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioners husband detained at Central Prison, Salem.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. The wife of the detenu viz., Manishkumar, S/o.Sathiyandira Singh, male, aged 28 years, who has been branded as Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act), has filed this habeas corpus petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner put forth several grounds. Firstly, he would submit that the documents supplied have not been translated in full and secondly, there is no proper subjective satisfaction in the statement of the detaining authority that the detenu will be enlarged on bail.

3. Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) accedes to the position that the detenu is a Hindi speaking person and several of the documents have not been translated in the language known to the detenu.

4. A persual of the booklet indicates several documents supplied to the detenu are only in Tamil, for instance, remand reports in pages 50 to 57 of the booklet furnished to the detenu. In the confession statement, the detenu states that he orginated from Piraho, Rampurchai, Arwal, Karpi, Bihar. He has also signed the confession statement as well as the acknowledgement of receipt in Hindi.

5. Further a copy of the bail order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1373 of 2024 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Hindi version has not been furnished in the booklet supplied to the detenu and is available only in the booklet furnished to one of us and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 2 SCC 413) has settled the position that the booklet should contain documents that are legible and in the language understood by the detenu. 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.”

7. Lastly, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is really no subjective satisfaction at all for the reason that the bail application filed by the detenu has been dismissed and admittedly no bail application has been filed thereafter. Despite this, the authority goes on to state that there are fair chances of either the detenu or his relatives move a bail application for which there is no basis at all. There is no statement that has been recorded from the relatives of the detenu and hence the subjective satisfaction is nothing but mere ipse dixit.

8. In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.89/GOONDA/2025/(M1) dated 23.10.2025 is set aside.

9. The detenu, viz., Manishkumar, S/o. Sathiyandira Singh, aged 28 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.