Madras High Court
Jotheeswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 July, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1546 of 2024
Jotheeswari ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Thirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in MHS.Confdl.No.84/2024, dated
27.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu namely Lingaraj, S/o. Vairavanathan, aged about 33 years now detained
at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
For Petitioner : M/s. R. Vinod Bharathi
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 detenu viz., Lingaraj, S/o.
Vairavanathan, aged about 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.84 / 2024, dated
27.10.2024, 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.
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 document at Page Nos.21 to
27 of the Part I of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
deprived of making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.
He Would further submit that though the detenu was furnished with illegible
document at Page Nos.21 to 27 of the Part I of the Booklet, on that score alone,
it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no
prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the
habeas corpus petition.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos. 21 to 27 of
the Part I of the Booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible. Non furnishing of
legible and clear copy of the vital documents would deprive the detenu of
making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
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
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.
...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
...
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 Nos.21 to 27 of the Part
I of the booklet. This furnishing of illegible copy to 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 MHS.Confdl.No.84/2024, dated 27.10.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Lingaraj, S/o. Vairavanathan,
aged about 33 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
16.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
trp
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Thirunelveli District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madars High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 16.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 05:09:53 pm )
