[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rubi vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its on 9 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
HCP No. 459 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
HCP No. 459 of 2026
Rubi
W/o.Vinoth,
267E, Ammankulam,
Erimedu Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore South,
Pin-641045.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Detaining Authority,
Coimbatore City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore-18.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-1 Singanallur Police Station,
Investigation wing,
Coimbatore City.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP No. 459 of 2026
Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from
the 2nd respondent in connection with order C.No.113/G/IS/2025 dated
11.07.2025 and quash the same and produce the petitioner’s friend namely
A.Mohammed Sadiq S/o.Ahammed Moideen, aged 31 years, now confined in
Central Prison, Coimbatore under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this
Hon’ble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted By
Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)
The friend of the detenu - A.Mohammed Sadiq, who has been branded as
Goonda under Section 2(f) passed under the provision of Tamil Nadu
Preventive Detention Act, 1982, has challenged his detention order dated
11.07.2025.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner, we are of
the view that it would suffice to advert to the ground relating to non-furnishing
of translation of important documents to test the impugned order of detention.
It is seen from the booklet at Page 36 that the copy of the final report relied
upon by the detaining authority has been furnished. However, admittedly, the
translated copy of the said document was not furnished to the detenu in the
language known to him. It is not in dispute that the detenu is only acquainted
with Tamil language.
4. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC
413', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards 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
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
5. Therefore, we are of the view that non-furnishing the said document
which has been relied upon by the detaining authority has caused prejudice to
the detenu and deprived him of his valuable right to make effective
representation which renders his continued detention illegal. Hence, we are
inclined to quash the detention order.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in
C.No.113/G/IS/2025, dated 11.07.2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The detenu, viz., A.Mohammed Sadiq, S/o. Ahammed Moideen, male,
aged 31 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, is hereby
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in
connection with any other case.
(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
09-04-2026
sl
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note to Registry: Issue Today.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore-18.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-1 Singanallur Police Station, Investigation wing, Coimbatore City.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order),Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN J.
sl
09-04-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
