Madras High Court
Sivakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD) No.313 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.313 of 2025
Sivakumar ...Petitioner/Father of the detenu
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.313 of 2025
with the detention order passed in S.R.No. 09/Gooda/2025 dated
19.02.2025 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely
the petitioner's son i.e., Ayansarankumar aged about 20 years S/o.
Sivakumar, now detaomed at the Central Prison, Madurai, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mathankarthick
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Ayansarankumar
aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in S.R.No. 09/Gooda/2025 dated 19.02.2025
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
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 confession statement relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page Nos. 9 to 12 of the first 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.9 to
12 of the first Booklet, which is the confession statement of the accused,
furnished to the detenu, 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.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of
making a 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. The relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
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
nonsupply 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible
copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page Nos.9
to 12 of the first booklet. This illegible copy of confession statement to
the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in
Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have
no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in S.R.No. 09/Gooda/2025 dated 19.02.2025 passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ayansarankumar
aged about 20 years S/o. Sivakumar, is directed to be released forthwith
unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
19.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
To:
1.The the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai, Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CM
19.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:16 pm )
