[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Naveenkumar vs State Of Tamilnadu Through on 19 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1348 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.1348 of 2025
Naveenkumar ... Petitioner/Detenu
-vs-
1.State of Tamilnadu through
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. ... 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.1348 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire
records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2
in M.H.S.Confdl.No.82/2025, dated 09.07.2025 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
detenu by name Naveenkumar, son of Paulpandi, aged about 30
years, detained as “Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
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., Naveenkumar, son of
Paulpandi, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.No.82/2025, dated
09.07.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
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 legible copy of the documents,
which are annexed in Page Nos.5, 95, 97 & 101, 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
distinction between a document which has been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
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
document be in a different language.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
...
...
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 M.H.S.Confdl.No.82/2025, 09.07.2025, by
the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz.,
Naveenkumar, S/o.Paulpandi, aged about 30 years, who is now
detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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 (xiv) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District.
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 )
