Madras High Court
Vishwanathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1464 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1464 of 2024
Vishwanathan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat.
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District, Theni
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent
District Jail, Theni
Theni 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
connected with the detention order passed in Detention order No.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1464 of 2024
46/2024 dt 05-08-2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or
body of the detenu namely Viswanathan, aged about 22 years,
S/o.Senthil Kumar, now detained at the District Jail, Theni before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith
For Petitioner : Mr.N. Pragalathan
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 detenu viz., Viswanathan, son of Senthil
Kumar, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Detention order No.46/2024 dated
05.08.2024, holding him to be a " Drug Offender ", as contemplated
under Section 2(e) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
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
Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on the
remand order, but the same has not been furnished to the detenu. 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
remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority has not been
furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-
furnishing of the said document 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: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
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.
...
...
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.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
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 the
remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority 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 Detention order No.46/2024 dated 05.08.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Viswanathan,
son of Senthil Kumar, aged about 22 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.]
09.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat.
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District, Theni
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent
District Jail, Theni
Theni District
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
aav
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 02:27:06 pm )
