Madras High Court
Pugalenthiran vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 2 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.16 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.16 of 2025
Pugalenthiran ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep by,
1. 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 of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd
respondent made in his proceedings in Detention Order No.40/2024
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 pm )
HCP(MD)No.16 of 2025
dated 22.07.2024 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to produce the detenu namely, Pugalenthiran,
S/o.Sakthivel, Male, aged about 24 years, who is detained at Central
Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam
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., Pugalenthiran, S/o.Sakthivel,
aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in Detention Order No.40/2024, dated
22.07.2024, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 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 and remand extension order, but the same have 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 and the remand extension order relied on by the Detaining
Authority have not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of
the view that the non-furnishing of the said documents 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: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 pm )
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
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.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 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 and remand extension 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.40/2024 dated 22.07.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Pugalenthiran, S/o.Sakthivel, aged about 24 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.]
02.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 pm )
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-6000009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District,
Theni.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 05:23:55 pm )
