Madras High Court
B.Santhoshkumar vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
B.Santhoshkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
H.C.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent in detention order No.
54/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 07.09.2024 quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely,
Sandipkumar, aged about 27 years, S/o.Beemaram, who is now detained
in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar
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 brother of the detenu viz., Sandipkumar,
aged about 27 years, S/o.Beemaram. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
07.09.2024 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
copy of the Accused checking register relied on by the Detaining
Authority, more particularly at Page Nos.91, 95 & 97 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 Nos.91, 95
and 97 of the Booklet, which is the Accused checking register furnished
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
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.''
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
91, 95 and 97 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 No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 07.09.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Sandipkumar, aged about 27 years, S/o.Beemaram, 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.]
23.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
rm
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:53 am )
