Madras High Court
Gowtham vs State Of Tamil Nadu Through on 6 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025
Gowtham ... Petitioner/Detenu
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu through,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records,
connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in
M.H.S.Confdl.No.55/2025, dated 13.05.2025 and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu ny
name Gowtham, son of Sasikumar, aged about 23 years, detained as
“Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him
at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
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 detenu viz., Gowtham, son of Sasikumar, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.55/2025, dated 13.05.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
____________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am ) H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025
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 grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with observation mahazar, which is not legible and the same was annexed in Page No.15 of the booklet. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned to reconsider the detention order.
4. 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 ____________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am ) H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025 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.
...
...
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 ____________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am ) H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025 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.
...
...
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.''
5. 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 ____________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am ) H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025 copy of the observation mahazar has impaired her 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.
6. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.55 of 2025, dated 13.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Gowtham, S/o.Sasikumar, aged about 23 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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.]
06.01.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu through,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
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: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am ) H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025 G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am H.C.P.(MD)No.1341 of 2025 06.01.2026 ____________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )