[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Alagupriya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.701 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.701 of 2025
S.Alagupriya ... Petitioner/
Wife of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
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, call for the records pertaining
to the proceedings of the second respondent made in his proceedings in
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:12 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.701 of 2025
B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.42/2025, dated 30.05.2025 and quash the same
and set petitioner's husband by name “Sundarapandi, S/o.Murugan, aged
about 30 years, liberty from the Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj
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., Sundarapandi,
son of Murugan, aged about 30 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.
42/2025,dated 30.05.2025, 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
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:12 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:12 pm )
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.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 04:57:12 pm )
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,
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: 12/01/2026 04:57:12 pm )
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.
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.42 of 2025, dated
30.05.2025, by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu
viz., Sundarapandi, S/o.Murugan, aged about 30 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.]
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 04:57:12 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
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 04:57:12 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 04:57:12 pm )
