[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 19 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1380 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1380 of 2025
Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner/
Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
State of Tamilnadu rep. by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1380 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling of the
records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the
second respondent made in his proceedings in P.D.O.No.33/2025,
dated 15.08.2025 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 Mathi @
Mathivanan, son of Rajendran, Male, aged about 26 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.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Mathi @
Mathivanan, son of Rajendran, aged about 26 years. The detenu has
been detained by the second respondent by her order in P.D.O.No.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
33/2025, dated 15.08.2025 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.
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 detenu was not served with translated copy of the
documents, which are annexed in Page Nos.41 & 70, of the booklet
Volume No.I. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of
his valuable right to make an effective representation to the
authorities concerned to reconsider the detention order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
4. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
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.''
5. 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 documents 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: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
6. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in P.D.O.No.33/2025, dated 15.08.2025, by
the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Mathi
@ Mathivanan, S/o.Rajendran, aged about 26 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.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
19.02.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
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: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
19.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
