Madras High Court
P.Palanisamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1072 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.1072 of 2025
P.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City
Tiruppur District
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Coimbatore District
4.The Inspector of Police
Veerapandi Police Station
Tiruppur City ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
HCP.No.1072 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to produce the detenu by name Siva, aged
23 years, S/o.Palanisamy, presently confined at Central Prison,
Coimbatore, befoer this Court and set him at liberty forthwith after calling
for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 27.12.2024 made in
C.No.106/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, Goonda
act quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu viz. Siva,
S/o.Palanisamy, aged about 23 years, confined at Central prison,
Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 27.12.2024 slapped on his
son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
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
Nos.79 to 81 (Form 91) of the booklet furnished to the detenu, are
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 07:35:49 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 07:35:49 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 27.12.2024 in C.No.106/G/IS?Tiruppur City/
2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The detenu viz. Siva, S/o.Palanisamy, aged about 23 years, confined at
Central prison, Coimbatore, 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
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City
Tiruppur District
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Coimbatore District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
4.The Inspector of Police
Veerapandi Police Station
Tiruppur City
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 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 07:35:49 pm )
