Madras High Court
Sarojkumar vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 2 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1206 of 2024
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
H.C.P.(MD) No.1206 of 2024
Sarojkumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
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,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records, connected with the detention
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1206 of 2024
order of the Respondent No.2 in H.S(M) Confdl.No.110/2024 dated 30.07.2024
and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of
the detenu by name Sarojkumar, son of Karuppasamy, aged about 24 years, now
detained as "Goonda" at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
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., Sarojkumar, son of Karuppasamy,
aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in H.S(M) Confdl.No.110/2024, dated 30.07.2024 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 the respondents. We have
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
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 copy of the Remand Report
relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.87 of the
booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.87 of the
Booklet, which is the Remand Report, furnished to the detenu, is illegible. This
furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document would
deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against
the order of detention.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
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:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
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.''
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 No.87 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in H.S(M)Confdl.No.110/2024, dated 30.07.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sarojkumar, aged about 24 years,
son of Karuppasamy, 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
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NS
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
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,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
NS
02.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 08:04:07 pm )
