Madras High Court
Jayasudha vs The Secretary To The Government on 27 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1296 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1296 of 2025
Jayasudha ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order
of detention passed by the second respondent dated 24.06.2025 in
RC.No.C2/30/2025 against the petitioner's husband Sakthivel, male, aged
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 pm )
H.C.P.No.1296 of 2025
43 years S/o.Arunachalam, who is confined at Central prison Cuddalore
and setaside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue
before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Sakthivel, S/o.Arunachalam, aged about 43 years, detained at Central
Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in
RC.No.C2/30/2025, branding him as a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under
Section 2(b) 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 points have been raised by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 pm )
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.48 in Vol.I of the booklet. 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.48 of the
Booklet in Volume-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 imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 pm )
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: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 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
RC.No.C2/30/2025 dated 24.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz.,
Sakthivel, S/o.Arunachalam, aged about 43 years, who is now confined in
the Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.,)
27.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1296 of 2025
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:16 pm )
