Madras High Court
Vijay @ Karuppasamy vs The Additional Secretary To Government on 25 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1323 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.1323 of 2024
Vijay @ Karuppasamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Additional Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai 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 of the respondent No.2 in Crl.M.P(MD).No.20/2024 (Drug Offender), dated
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1323 of 2024
19.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or
person of the detenu by name Vijay @ Karuppasamy, Son of Gunasekaran, aged
about 23 years, now detained as “Drug Offender” at Madurai Central Prison
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Ramesh Kumar
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., Vijay @ Karuppasamy, Son of
Gunasekaran, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in Crl.M.P(MD).No.20/2024 (Drug Offender), dated
19.09.2024 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
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 Remand Report
relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page Nos. 59 and 60 of
Volume I 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 Volume I, Page Nos. 59
and 60 of the booklet, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
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.''
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
documents relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos. 59 and 60 of
Volume 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
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 Crl.M.P(MD).No.20/2024 (Drug Offender), dated 19.09.2024,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vijay @
Karuppasamy, Son of Gunasekaran, aged about 23 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.]
25.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
trp
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
To
1. The Additional Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
trp
25.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 02:58:03 pm )
