Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 September, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P.(MD)No.686 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.686 of 2025
Krishnaveni ... Petitioner
-vs-
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep By,
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
made in his proceedings in C.No.14/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.686 of 2025
21.02.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu
Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Goonda' and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu namely Ragupathi, S/o.Ravichandran,
Male, aged about 22 years, who is detained in Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu namely Ragupathi,
S/o.Ravichandran, aged about 22 years. The detenu had been detained
by the second respondent by his order in C.No.
14/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated 21.02.2025, holding him to be a
“Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
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 not furnished with the
copy of the 'Remand extension Order' relied on by the Detaining
Authority. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making
effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet at page No.81, it is seen that
the 'Remand extension Order', was not furnished to the detenu. This non-
furnishing of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
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 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. The non-furnishing of remand extension
order 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 in quashing the impugned detention order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in C.No.14/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated
21.02.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu,
viz., Ragupathi, S/o.Ravichandran, aged about 22 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.]
22.09.2025
vsm
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
22.09.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:35 pm )
