Madras High Court
Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1520 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1520 of 2025
Rani ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID Salem Unit,
Salem District. Cr.No.196/2025. ... 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
impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in
C.M.P.No.4/Black Marketer/Salem City/2025 dated 14.07.2025 and quash
the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to produce
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
H.C.P.No.1520 of 2025
the detenu, namely, Thiru.Arumugam @ Laddu Arumugam aged about 54
years, S/o.Raman now detained in the Central Prison Salem before this
Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Gokulvisvas
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Arumugam @ Laddu Arumugam, S/o.Raman, aged about 54 years, detained
at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition, challenging
the detention order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.M.P.No.4/Black Marketer/Salem City/2025, branding him as a "Black
Marketer", as contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and
Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act
7 of 1980.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 detenue was furnished with illegible copy at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
Page No.189 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenue was
deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.189 of
the Booklet furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This furnishing of
illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the detenue 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
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 detenue 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
detenue, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
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 detenue 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 detenue'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 detenue, 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: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
C.M.P.No.4/Black Marketer/Salem City/2025 dated 14.07.2025 is hereby
set aside. The detenue, viz., Arumugam @ Laddu Arumugam, S/o.Raman,
aged about 54 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Salem, is
hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required
in connection with any other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
03.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID Salem Unit,
Salem District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1520 of 2025
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 09:26:17 pm )
