[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Eswari 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.961 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.961 of 2025
Eswari ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni, Theni District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai, Madurai District. ... 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 relating
to the impugned order of detention made in Detention Order No.20/25
dated 24.05.2025 on the file of the District Collector and Magistrate,
____________
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.961 of 2025
Theni, Theni District, the second respondent herein, branding the detenu
by name Karuppasami, S/o.Selvakumar, aged about 20 years, as 'Drug
Offender' who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai
District and quash the impugned order of detention and set the detenu at
liberty by producing the detenu before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Senguttuarsan
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., Karuppasami
@ Kudumpi, Son of Selvakumar, aged about 20 years. The detenu has
been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order
no.20/2025, dated 24.05.2025, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as
contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 detenu was served with illegible copy of the List of Property,
which is annexed in Page Nos.92 & 93 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 list of property 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 form of a
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 11:51:12 am )
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 Detention Order No.20 of 2025, dated
24.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu
viz., Karuppasami, S/o.Selvakumar, aged about 20 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 Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni, Theni District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai, Madurai District.
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 )
