Madras High Court
Nalini vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 9 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1683 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1683 of 2025
Nalini ... Petitioner/detenue's mother
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal-II,
Chennai-600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu-603 203. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention
order BCDFGISSSV No.62/2025 dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 2nd
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
H.C.P.No.1683 of 2025
respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the
body of the detenue Nandhakumar, S/o.Nagarajan, aged 23 years now
detained in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Yasin
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue, namely
Nandhakumar, S/o.Nagarajan, aged 23 years, detained at Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order dated 29.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
BCDFGISSSV No.62/2025, 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.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the
Special Report of the Inspector of Police, T9, Maraimalai Nagar Police
Station, is undated. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority based on this undated Report, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
furnishing of undated Special Report to the detenue.
5. It is seen from records that the Special Report furnished to
the detenue, that is enclosed in the Booklet at Pg.No.331 of the Booklet
stating that she is planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenue
on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen
that the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction for
detaining the detenue as Goonda on the basis of the Special Report of the
concerned Inspector of Police. This Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material,
suffers from non-application of mind.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in
'2011 [5] SCC 244', has dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is
passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in
the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly
assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. When the subjective
satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is
relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
“10.In our opinion, if details are given by the
respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar
cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application
number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the
co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-
accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner,
then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of
the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal
practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted
bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the
petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail.
However, the respondent authority should have given details
about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not
been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in
the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order
and has to be ignored.
11.In our opinion, the detention order in question only
contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable
material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question
cannot be sustained.”
7. 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.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in BCDFGISSSV No.62/2025 Dated 29.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Nandhakumar, S/o.Nagarajan, aged 23 years, who is now
confined in the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to
be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with
any other case.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
09.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal-II,
Chennai-600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu-603 203.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
09.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:57 pm )
