Madras High Court
Najeera Begum vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 16 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 969 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P No. 969 of 2025
1. Najeera Begum
W/o.Abdul Rasheed,
No.68/88, Sulthanpet Street,
Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
HCP No. 969 of 2025
4.The Inspector of Police,
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records,
relating to petitioners husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 vide
detention order, dated 05.05.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made
in proceedings C3/D.O./65/2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioners husband namely
Abdul Rasheed aged 46 yrs son of Habeeb Rahman before this Hon'ble High
Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.C.Chellappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu viz. Abdul Rasheed
S/o.Habeeb Rahman, aged about 46 years, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 05.05.2025 slapped on her husband,
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
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, 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 copies in Page Nos.8, 9 and
10 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making
effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.8, 9 and 10 of the
booklet i.e. copy of the Confession Statement, furnished to the detenu, are
illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive
the detenu 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
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
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
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.”
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
6. 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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 05.05.2025 in C3/D.O./65/2025, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Abdul Rasheed,
S/o.Habeeb Rahman, aged about 46 years, confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
16-09-2025
ASI
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate of Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ASI
16-09-2025
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 04:44:10 pm )
