Madras High Court
Suyambukani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD) No.664 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.664 of 2025
SuyambuKani ...Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli City.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records leading to the
detention of the petitioner's son namely Logesh @ Loga Eswaran
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.664 of 2025
S/o.Paulraj aged about 22 years vide detention order dated 13.02.2025
made in H.S(M).Confdl.No.15/2025 passed by the second respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to
produce the body or person of the detenu now detained at Central Prison,
Palayamkottai before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Mohamed Ashik Jaman
for Mr.S.Vishuvardhan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Logesh @ Loga Eswaran
S/o.Paulraj aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in H.S(M).Confdl.No.15/2025 dated
13.02.2025 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 05:24:17 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 remand extension order is not furnished
and though it is stated in the grounds of detention, there is no order
furnished to the detenue. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was
deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that
remand order was extended. But the remand extension order is not
furnished to the petitioner. This non-furnishing 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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
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.52 to 54
of the first Booklet. This illegible copy of Accident Report to the detenu,
has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation
against the impugned preventive detention order. To be 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
in quashing the impugned detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in P.D.O.05/2025 dated 18.02.2025 passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Dhivakar son of
Murugesan, aged about 28 years, 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 05:24:17 pm )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli City.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CM
19.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:24:17 pm )
