[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Abarna vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2025
Abarna ... Petitioner/
Wife of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Collectorate Office,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1391 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 Detention
Order H.S(M)Confdl.No.49 of 2025, dated 29.05.2025 and quash the
same and to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
detenu by name Esakkimuthu, son of Karuthapandi, aged about 22 years,
now confining as “Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Danush Kumar
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., Esakkimuthu,
son of Karuthapandi, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in H.S(M) Confdl.No.49 of 2025,
dated 29.05.2025, 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
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 order relied on by the Detaining Authority, more
particularly at Page Nos.165 to 167. 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 Nos.165
to 167 of the Booklet, which is the remand report, furnished to the
detenu, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy would deprive the
detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the
order of detention.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
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.
...
...
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
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.
...
...
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
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 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.
7. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order passed in H.S(M)Confdl.No.49 of 2025, 29.05.2025, by
the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz.,
Esakkimuthu, S/o.Karuthapandi, aged about 22 years, who is now
detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to be released
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
forthwith, unless his presence or custody or detention is required in
connection with any other case.
8. It is also made clear that if any bail application filed by
the detenu, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application on
its own merits and in accordance with law, without influencing any of the
observation made by this Court.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
09.01.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Collectorate Office,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 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 04:57:11 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
09.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:11 pm )
