Madras High Court
Santhosh Kumari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.761 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.761 of 2025
Santhosh Kumari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Thiruvarur District
3.The Superintendent
Thiruvarur District
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Trichy
5.STATE rep. by the Inspector of Police
Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station
Thiruvarur District
(Crime No.108 of 2025) ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
HCP.No.761 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records leading to the
detention of petitioner's husband, the detenu Amar Ram Prohith, aged 28
years, S/o.Ragunathaji, 242/4, Hospital Street, Thiruthuraipondi Police
Station, Thiruvarur District presently detained in Central Prison, Trichy,
under Act 14/1982, banded as Drug Offender vide the detention order
dated 10.03.2025 in C.O.C.No.07/ Drug Offender/ on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein, directing to produce the person of the detenu Amar
Ram Prohith, aged 28 year, Son of Ragunathaji, before this Court and
thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Trichy by set aside the
above order.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu viz. Amar Ram
Prohith, S/o.Ragunathaji, aged about 28 years, confined at Central prison,
Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.03.2025 slapped
on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 copies in 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 in Volume I, Page
No.41 of the booklet, Remand Report, furnished to the detenu, is illegible.
This furnishing of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the
order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in
'(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the
detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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.”
6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
the second respondent on 10.03.2025 in C.O.C.No.07/2025 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Amar
Ram Prohith, S/o.Ragunathaji, aged about 28 years, confined at Central
prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he
is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
26.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non speaking
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Thiruvarur District
3.The Superintendent
Thiruvarur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Trichy
5.The Inspector of Police
Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station
Thiruvarur District
(Crime No.108 of 2025)
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
