[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Maharaja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1302 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1302 of 2025
Maharaja ... Petitioner / Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai – 625 016.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Dindigul District Jail,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1302 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records
connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.
89/Goonda/2025, dated 28.08.2025 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Maharaja, son of Thangaraj, aged about 34 years, now detained as
''Goonda'' at Dindigul District Jail before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy
for 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, who has been detained by the second
respondent by her order in Cr.M.P.No.89/Goonda/2025, dated 28.08.2025
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
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.14, 44, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56 to 59 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.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
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.
...
...
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.''
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
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.
6. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.89/Goonda/2025, dated 28.08.2025,
by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz.,
Maharaja, son of Thangaraj, aged about 34 years, who is now detained in
District Jail, Dindigul, 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.]
26.02.2026
Indu
NCC :Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai – 625 016.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Dindigul District Jail,
Dindigul.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
Indu
26.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:25 am )
