Madras High Court
R.Nithya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.345 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.345 of 2025
R.Nithya ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in
detention order passed in P.D.No.08/2025, dated 28.02.2025 on the file
of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and
direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's
son namely Nithish, S/o.Ramesh, male, aged about 22 years, who is
detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him
at liberty.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.345 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Nithish, aged
about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent
in P.D.No.08/2025, dated 28.02.2025 holding him to be a 'Drug
Offender', as contemplated under Section 2(e) of 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
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on Form 91
relating to the articles seized from the accused, which is available at Page
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
No.143 of the booklet and it is indecipherable. It is, therefore, stated
that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective
representation.
4. The respondents have obtained a certified Xerox copy of
this particular document from the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
The officer of the Court, who had taken the certified Xerox, should have
known that the copy furnished totally indecipherable and therefore,
should have return the copy application seeking Xerox and should have
typed the matter and should have issued typed copy of the document.
5. We have come across the several incident, where, the
Court issued the certified Xerox copy of the vital documents, this had
lead the stand be taken by the detenu challenging his preventive
detention and they have prevented from giving effective representation
against the detention order. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-
furnishing of the legible documents would deprive the detenu of his
valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said
circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed
by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
6. For better appreciation we would give a Scanned copy of
the document annexed in Booklet Page 143.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
7. 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:
''6. The short question that falls for our
consideration is whether failure to supply the
Tamil version of the order of remand passed in
English, a language not known to the detenue,
would vitiate her further detention.
...
...
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
any other case. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.''
8. 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 Form-91 relating to the articles seized from the accused 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.
9. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in P.D.No.08/2025, dated 28.02.2025, by the 2nd
respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Nithish,
S/o.Ramesh, aged about 22 years, who is now detained in Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence
or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
10. We also note that the quantity seized is commercial
quantity of 128 kgms of ganja and only since the certified xerox of a
document which could not be even read, the detention order had been
quashed. We note that the prosecution has filed a charge sheet, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.82 of 2025 on 18.07.2025. The
accused had been arrested on 25.12.2024. We also note that charge sheet
had been E-filed on 05.06.2025. The bail application of the accused may
be decided on merits and in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS
Act.
11. We would, therefore, direct a Circular to be issued by the
Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai after obtaining due
permission to all the Subordinate Courts that whenever the certified
xerox copies are sought by the prosecution agency and when the
documents are indecipherable or written in hand by the authorities or by
the Judicial Officer, if copy applications are filed for the documents
which are in possession of the Court necessarily and mandatorily only
certified typed copies alone should be issued, which are legible and
which confirms to the materials available with the Court and which are
readable and over which no complaint could be raised of being either
illegible, indecipherable or could not be read or not clean.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
26.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
Internet : Yes
am
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector,
O/o.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy To
1.The Registrar General
Madras High Court,
Madras.
2.The Additional Registrar General,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 03:39:30 pm )
