[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Eswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 17 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1479 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1479 of 2025
Eswaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Theni District, Theni.
3.The Inspector of Police
Cumbum North Police Station
Theni District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1479 of 2025
to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in detention order
No.32/2025 dated 10.07.2025 and to quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu viz., Eswaran,
aged 50 years, S/o.Periyasamy, before this Court and set him at liberty
now detained at Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mrs.K.Kavitha
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Eswaran, aged 50 years,
S/o.Periyasamy . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent
by his order in detention order No.32/2025 dated 10.07.2025 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page nos.7 and 29 of
the booklet, therefore the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to
make an effective representation to reconsider the order of detention.
4. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the
submission made the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents, it is revealed that the detenu was not served with legible
copy of the page nos. 7 and 29 of the booklet, therefore, the detenu
could not able to make an effective representation to reconsider the order
of detention. Hence, on this sole ground, the present impugned detention
order is also liable to be set aside.
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
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 as we find that non-furnishing of legible
copy of the page nos. 7 and 29 of the booklet 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: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in detention order No.32/2025 dated 10.07.2025,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Eswaran,
aged 50 years, S/o.Periyasamy , is directed to be released forthwith
unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
17.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Theni District, Theni.
3.The Inspector of Police
Cumbum North Police Station
Theni District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Madurai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
aav
17.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 01:00:37 pm )
