Madras High Court
Kumudha vs The Secretary To Government on 14 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1333 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
HCP No. 1333 of 2025
1. Kumudha
W/o. Gunasekaran, No.89, Church
Street, Andarasanpettai, Arakkonam,
Ammanur, Vellore-631002.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Arakkonam.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
HCP No. 1333 of 2025
PRAYER
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to call for the records in connection with the order of
Detenue passed by the second respondent dated 09.06.2025 in
B3/D.O.No.42/2025 against the petitioner's husband, namely, Thiru.
Gunasekaran, Male, aged 62 years, S/o. Durairaj, who is confined at Central
Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.,Gunasekaran, S/o
Durairaj, aged about 62 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 09.06.2025, slapped on her husband, branding him as a
"Goonda" under 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as 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 detenu was furnished with illegible copy of the list of property
in Volume-I, Page No.72-a of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu
was deprived of making effective representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly state that the list
of property, furnished to the detenu, is illegible.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the list of property, at Page
No.72-a of Volume-I of the booklet, furnished to the detenue, is illegible. This
furnishing of illegible copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of
making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
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.
..... 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 09.06.2025 in B3/D.O.No.42/2025 is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gunasekaran, S/o
Durairaj, aged about 62 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection
with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.)(S.SOUNTHAR J.)
14-10-2025
ASI
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Arakkonam.
6. The Joint Secretary,
Law & Order Department,
Secretariat,Chennai-9.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ASI
14-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
