Madras High Court
Selvi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 29 August, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.524 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.524 of 2025
Selvi ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Suthamali Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
HCP(MD)No.524 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
connection with the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 20-01-2025 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.09/2025 against the Chelladurai
(Detenue) aged 37 years S/o.Sithuraj who is placed under detention at
Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set aside the detention order and
direct the respondents to produce the body or person before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Chelladurai S/o.
Sithuraj, aged 37 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.09/2025, dated 20-01-2025,
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
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
document at Page No.101 of the Booklet(Volume-I) relied on by the
Detaining Authority is illegible. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is
deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the
impugned detention order suffers from infirmity due to illegible copy of
the document at Page No.101 of the Booklet(Volume-I) served on the
detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the said defect would deprive
the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is
in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention
order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
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.
...
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
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.
...
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non
supply 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 illegible copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
document at Page No.101 of the Booklet(Volume-I) served on the
detenu, 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.09/2025, dated 20-01-2025,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz.,
Chelladurai S/o. Sithuraj, aged 37 years, is directed to be released
forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other
case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
29.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Suthamali Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:38 pm )
