[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ramya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 8 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.696 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.696 of 2025
Ramya ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
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 proceedings of the second respondent in
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.40/2025, dated 22.05.2025 and quash the same
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.696 of 2025
and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's
husband namely Mr.Lakshmipathirajan @ Kudumpi, S/o.Sundarajan,
aged 27 years, Parayankulam Post, Varichiyur, Madurai District has been
detained and branded as “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 and confined in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
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 wife of the detenu viz.,
Lakshmipathirajan @ Kudumpi, Son of Sundarajan, aged about 27 years.
The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by her order in
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.40 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the ground
that the petitioner was served with illegible copy of the observation
mahazar, which is annexed in Page No.13 of Volume-I of the booklet. 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
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:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
''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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
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.''
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 observation mahazar has impaired her constitutional right to
make an effective representation against the impugned preventive
detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
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 B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.40 of 2025, dated
22.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu
viz., Lakshmipathirajan @ Kudumpi, S/o.Sundarajan, 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.]
08.01.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
08.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
