Madras High Court
Vijayashanthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1856 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1856 of 2025
Vijayashanthi ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3. The Inspector of Police,
P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention
order in Memo No.524/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 31.07.2025 passed by
the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the
same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
H.C.P.No.1856 of 2025
Thiru.Gowtham @ Appunu, S/o.Veeran, aged about 33 years the detenue
now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honourable
Court and set the petitioner's husband Thiru.Gowtham @ Appunu,
S/o.Veeran, aged about 33 years the detenue herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Gowtham @ Appunu, S/o.Veeran, aged about 33 years, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 31.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in Memo
No.524/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu 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 and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
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
Page No.45 of the booklet (Vol.I). 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.45 of the
Booklet (Vol.I) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
Memo No.524/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 31.07.2025 is hereby set
aside. The detenue, viz., Gowtham @ Appunu, S/o.Veeran, aged about 33
years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.,)
07.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3. The Inspector of Police,
P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
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.1856 of 2025
07.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:38 pm )
