Madras High Court
Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
Latha ... Petitioner/
Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its the Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
(Crime No.161 of 2025)
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order issued by the second
respondent in his proceedings in Detention Order
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43 of 2025, dated 30.05.2025 in detaining the
detenu under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Drug
Offender' at the Central Prison, Madurai and thereby, to quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Tharma @
Kotcha, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 27 years, who is now detained at the
Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vignesh
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Tharma @ Motcha, son of Murugesan, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43/2025, dated 30.05.2025, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act ____________ Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 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 report relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.115 and the translated copy of the remand report has not been served to the detenu. 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.115 of the Booklet, which is the remand report, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and the translated copy of the same has not been served to the ____________ Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026 detenu. This furnishing of illegible copy 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 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:
''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
____________ Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
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.
____________ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026 ...
...
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 remand report and the translated copy has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this 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.
____________ Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
7. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order passed in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43 of 2025, dated 30.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Tharman @ Kotcha, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 27 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
24.02.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
____________ Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm ) H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026 G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026 24.02.2026 ____________ Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )