Madras High Court
Subiksha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1612 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1612 of 2025
Subiksha ... Petitioner/Detenue's wife
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station, Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur 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 relating to the Detention
order vide Memo C.No.43/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2025 dated 14.07.2025
passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to produce Petitioner Husband namely Madhan aged
about 22 years S/o. Mariyappan (who is confined in Central Prison
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
H.C.P.No.1612 of 2025
Coimbatore) before the Honble Court and set him at liberty and pass such
further or other orders as this Honble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Madhan, S/o. Mariyappan, aged about 22 years, detained at Central Prison,
Coimbatore has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention
order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.No.43/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2025, branding him as a "Drug Offender",
as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that there was no translated version of the Arrest
Intimation Memo at Page Nos.15 & 17 of Vol.I furnished to the detenue.
This deprived the detenu from making 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 translated version to the detenue.
5. On perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly in Page Nos.15 & 17 of the booklet (Vol.I), the translated copy
of the Arrest Intimation Memo has not been furnished to the detenue.
Therefore, the detenue is deprived from making 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
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'
reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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
held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 of th 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in C.No.43/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2025 dated 14.07.2025, is hereby set
aside. The detenue, viz., Madhan, S/o. Mariyappan, aged 25 years, who is
now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore 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.,)
30.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station, Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1612 of 2025
30.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
