Madras High Court
Kamala vs The State Rep. By Secretary To ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.2163 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2163 of 2025
Kamala ... Petitioner/
mother of the detenu
Versus
1. The State Rep. By Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai – 9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
4. The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli
5. The Inspector of Police
Keelapalur Police Station
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
HCP.No.2163 of 2025
Ariyalur .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the detention order passed by the second respondent on 19.03.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.06 of 2025 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu R.Ramesh, S/o.Ravi, male, aged 27 years before this
Court and set him at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu R.Ramesh, S/o.Ravi,
male, aged 27 years has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 19.03.2025 bearing
reference Crl.M.P.No.06/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual
Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the hearing submitted that the order of
detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material
irregularities as there is a reference to bail petition filed by the detenu before
this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7975 of 2025 in the grounds of detention, but the
copy of the petition is not furnished to the detenu, which prevented him
from making an effective representation and therefore, the impugned
detention order is liable to be set aside.
4. On a perusal of Booklet served on the detenu, it is seen that copy
of the bail petition referred to in the grounds of detention is not enclosed in
the booklet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non-furnishing of copy
of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a
subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to
make effective representation. Therefore, on this ground alone, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is liable to be set aside.
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
..... 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. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 19.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.06/2025 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
R.Ramesh, S/o.Ravi, male, aged 27 years, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
24.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai – 9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
4. The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli
5. The Inspector of Police
Keelapalur Police Station
Ariyalur
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
7.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:17 pm )
