Mariyamma vs The Secretary To Government
2026 Latest Caselaw 2241 Mad

Madras High Court

Mariyamma vs The Secretary To Government on 29 April, 2026

Author: Anita Sumanth

Bench: Anita Sumanth

                                                                                 HCP No. 2106 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 29-04-2026
                                                           CORAM
                                    THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
                                                            AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
                                                   HCP No. 2106 of 2025

                      Mariyamma
                                                                                           ..Petitioner(s)
                                                            Vs
                      1. The Secretary to Government
                         Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                         Secretariat, Fort St.George,
                         Chennai-600 009.

                      2. The Commissioner of Police
                         Tambaram City.

                      3. The Superintendent Of Prison,
                         Central Prison, Puzhal,
                         Chennai.

                      4. The Inspector of Police
                         T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
                         Tambaram City.
                                                                                         ..Respondent(s)

                     Prayer:         Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ or order in the
                     nature of Writ, call for the records in connection with the order of
                     Detention       passed   by     the   second   respondent     17.09.2025     in
                     BBCDEFGISSSV No.117/2025 against the petitioner’s son Senthil
                     __________
                     Page 1 of 5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   HCP No. 2106 of 2025


                     Murugan, Male aged 31 years S/o. Jayamoorthi who is confined at
                     Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondents
                     to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at Liberty.


                                     For Petitioner(s):        Ms.J.K.Madhumathi
                                                               for Mr.D.Balaji

                                     For Respondent(s):        Mr. R. Muniyapparaj
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                               Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John


                                                            ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

The mother of the detenu – Senthil Murugan, has filed this petition

challenging the detention order dated 17.09.2025, branding him as a

‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act,

1982 (Act 14/1982).

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

3. We find on perusal of the record and on hearing the submissions

on either side, the impugned order cannot be sustained on the sole ground

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. The

compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on

which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the

said date, the special report would become irrelevant and the compelling

necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful.

4. Further in 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to

Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any

irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reason the impugned

detention order is liable to be set aside.

5.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the

Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV

No.117/2025 dated 17.09.2025 is set aside.

6.The detenu, viz., J.Senthil Murugan, S/o. Jayamoorthi, aged 31

years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection

with any other case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 29-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

ars

Note to Registry : Issue Today

To

1. The Secretary to Government Home) Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City.

3. The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Tambaram 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.

ars

29-04-2026

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis