Madras High Court
Sankari vs The Special Secretary To Government ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.1347 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1347 of 2025
Sankari ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
Versus
1.The Special Secretary to Government (Home)
Govt. of Puducherry
Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue
Puducherry – 605 001
2. The District Collector-cum-Authorized Officer
Puducherry District, Puducherry
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L & O)
Puducherry
4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail
Central Prison
Kalapet, Puducherry
5. The Inspector of Police
Villianur Police Station
Puducherry .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
HCP.No.1347 of 2025
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
No.01/DM/RO/D2/PITNDPS/2025 dated 23.06.2025 on the file of the
second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Thiru.Marumani @
Manikandan, Son of Selvam, who is now detained in Central Prison,
Kalapet, Puducherry before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy
Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Thiru.Marumani @
Manikandan, S/o. Selvam, male, aged about 30 years, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 23.06.2025 bearing reference
No.01/DM/RO/D2/PITNDPS/2025 slapped on her husband, branding him
as "illegal drug trafficker" under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Susbtances Act, 1988 (Act No.46 of 1988) read
with order issued by the Home Department, Government of Puducherry in
G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 25th February 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other
grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument
on the ground that copy of the remand report has not been furnished to the
detenu and the same deprived the detenu from making an effective
representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to
be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
non-supply of the remand report to the detenu.
5. On perusal of the booklet furnished to the detenu, it is seen
that the remand report has not been enclosed in the booklet, which
prevented the detenu from making an effective representation and that the
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
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 is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of the said judgment 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
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 detenuee be set free
forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other
case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
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. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.06.2025 in
No.01/DM/RO/D2/PITNDPS/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz.,
Thiru.Marumani @ Manikandan, Son of Selvam, male, aged 30 years, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
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.]
29.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Govt. of Puducherry
Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue
Puducherry – 605 001
2. The District Collector-cum-Authorized Officer
Puducherry District, Puducherry
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L & O)
Puducherry
4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail
Central Prison
Kalapet, Puducherry
5. The Inspector of Police
Villianur Police Station
Puducherry
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: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:00 pm )
