[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Jeevarani vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1206 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1206 of 2025
Jeevarani ... Petitioner/
Mother of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second
respondent made in his proceedings in Detention Order
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1206 of 2025
No.m.Nk.F.ke;jzk; vz;.33/2025 dated 03.05.2025 in detaining the
detenu under Section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Drug
Offender' and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu namely Kasithuraithalaivanar @ Karthick, Male, aged about 25
years, who is detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy
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.,
Kasiduraithalaivanar alias Karthick, son of Poolidurai, aged about 25
years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his
order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.33/2025, dated 03.05.2025 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: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 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 grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was served with illegible copy of the search register, which is
annexed in Page No.5 of the booklet Volume-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
opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
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
the opportunity of making an effective
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
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.''
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
copy of the search register 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 M.H.S.Confdl.No.33/2025, dated 03.05.2025,
by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz.,
Kasiduraithalaivanar alias Karthick, S/o.Poolidurai, aged about 25 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.]
06.01.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
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: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
06.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:19:29 pm )
