Madras High Court
Vaishnavi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.2212 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.2212 of 2025
Vaishnavi ... Petitioner/
friend of the detenu
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat Complex
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Office of Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai – 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prisons
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
HCP.No.2212 of 2025
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
G-1 Vepery Police Station
Chennai District .. 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 in No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.07.2025
passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce Sanjay @ Rahul,
S/o.Gopinath, male, aged 24 years, who is presently confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chenani before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhosh
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 friend of the detenu Sanjay @ Rahul,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
S/o.Gopinath, male, aged 24 years, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
12.07.2025 bearing reference No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her
friend, branding him as "Goonda" 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: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 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
the copy of the Government order pertaining to Delegation of Powers was
not given 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 Government Order 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. Therefore,
on this ground alone, the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority
is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
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. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by
second respondent dated 12.07.2025 in No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Sanjai @ Rahul, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Gopinath, is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
[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: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat Complex
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Office of Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai – 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
G-1 Vepery Police Station
Chennai District
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:24:52 pm )
