[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
Latha ... Petitioner/
Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its the Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
(Crime No.161 of 2025)
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.58 of 2026
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order issued by the second
respondent in his proceedings in Detention Order
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43 of 2025, dated 30.05.2025 in detaining the
detenu under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Drug
Offender' at the Central Prison, Madurai and thereby, to quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Tharma @
Kotcha, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 27 years, who is now detained at the
Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vignesh
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., Tharma @
Motcha, son of Murugesan, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been
detained by the second respondent by his order in
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43/2025, dated 30.05.2025, holding him to be a
"Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
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 points have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to
be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible
copy of the remand report relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page No.115 and the translated copy of the remand report
has not been served to the detenu. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu
was deprived of making effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.115 of
the Booklet, which is the remand report, furnished to the detenu, is
illegible and the translated copy of the same has not been served to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
detenu. This furnishing of illegible copy would deprive the detenu of
making effective representation to the authorities against the order of
detention.
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,
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.
...
...
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
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
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: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 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.''
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 remand report and the translated copy 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: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
7. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.43 of 2025, dated
30.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu
viz., Tharman @ Kotcha, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 27 years, who is
now detained in Central Prison, Madurai, 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.]
24.02.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
Madurai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
24.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:33 pm )
