Madras High Court
Devi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
Devi ...Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar
3.The Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the
proceedings of the second respondent in his proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.
02/2025 (Gooda) dated 03.02.2025 and set aside the same and direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenu, namely Muthukumar,
S/o.Thiruppathy aged about 35 years, before this Court now confined in
in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Muthukumar, S/o.Thiruppathy aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Crl.M.P.No.02/2025 (Gooda) dated 03.02.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the ____________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm ) H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025 petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the 'Remand Order' relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.261 of the first booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.261 of the Booklet, which is the 'Remand Order', furnished to the detenu, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of ____________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm ) H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025 Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''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 ____________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm ) H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025 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.
...
...
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.261 of the Booklet. This illegible copy of remand order to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this ____________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm ) H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025 constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Crl.M.P.No.02/2025 (Gooda) dated 03.02.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Muthukumar, S/o.Thiruppathy aged about 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
16.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
____________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
To:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar
3.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
____________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm ) H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025 C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR CM H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2024 16.09.2025 ____________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:24 pm )