[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Arun Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P(MD)No.1047 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.1047 of 2025
Arun Kumar,
S/o.Sebesthiyar,
Periya Kulathupatti,
Marampadi Post,
Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District.
(Now confined at Madurai Central Prison)
... Petitioner/Detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
H.C.P(MD)No.1047 of 2025
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 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 No.32/2025 dated 20.05.2025 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name
Arunkumar, son of Sebesthiyar, aged about 34 years, now confining
at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani
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 detenu viz., Arunkumar, son of
Sebesthiyar, aged about 34 years. The detenu was detained by the
second respondent by order in Detention Order No.32/2025 dated
20.05.2025, branding him as a “Goonda”, as contemplated under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
Section 2(f) of the 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.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
raised the following grounds:
3.1. The detention order was passed by the detaining
authority on 20.05.2025. On the same day, the detenu submitted a
representation to the detaining authority seeking reconsideration of
the order of detention. However, the said representation was not
forwarded either to the Advisory Board or to the Government. The
detaining authority rejected the representation on 28.05.2025. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
grounds of detention, the detaining authority clearly mentioned that
the detenu could submit a representation within a period of 12 days
from the date of detention order for reconsideration of the order of
detention. Though the detenu submitted the representation within the
said period of 12 days, the detaining authority failed to forward the
same to the Advisory Board and the Government. Further, the detenu
was arrested on 21.04.2025, whereas the detention order was passed
only on 20.05.2025, resulting in unexplained delay. The
representation submitted by the detenu was also not considered by
the detaining authority within a period of 12 days as mentioned in
the grounds of detention.
3.2. In the Tamil version of grounds of the detention, the
detaining authority stated that the first bail application filed by the
detenu in C.R.M.P.No.265 of 2025 was dismissed by order dated
02.05.2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur
and further stated that another bail application in C.R.M.P.No.310 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
2025 was pending for adjudication before the same Court. However,
in the English version of the grounds of the detention, the detaining
authority failed to mention about the pendency of the subsequent
bail application. This discrepancy has caused prejudice to the detenu
in making an effective representation before the concerned
authorities.
4. In order to substantiate the grounds raised, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Ansar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another
[2008 (3) MLJ (Crl) 142], wherein it was held that the failure of the
detaining authority to forward the representation to the Government
vitiated the order of detention.
5. On perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the second
respondent and also on the submissions made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, it is revealed that the detenu was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2025 pursuant to
the registration of the ground case and the detention order was
passed on 20.05.2025 ie., within a period of 30 days. Hence, there
was no delay in passing the order of detention under Act 14 of 1982.
Though the detaining authority stated in the grounds of detention
that the detenu could submit a representation within a period of 12
days from the date of the detention order and that it would be duly
considered, such a right is not available under Act 14 of 1982.
6. It is relevant to extract Section 3(3) of Act 14 of 1982,
which reads as follows:
“3.Power to make orders detaining certain
persons.-
(3) When any order is made under this
section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he
shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government
together with the grounds on which the order has been
made and such other particulars as, in his opinion,
have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
remain in force for more than twelve days after the
making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been
approved by the State Government.”
7. Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority shall
forthwith report the detention order to the Government for approval.
No such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after
sending the same to the Government, unless, in the meanwhile it has
been approved by the State Government. It means that the detaining
authority shall have to send the detention order to the Government
for its approval forthwith from the date of order of detention and the
Government shall have to approve it within a period of 12 days. If
the detention order is not approved within a period of 12 days, the
detention order shall not remain in force after 12 days.
8. It is also relevant to extract Section 10 of Act 14 of
1982, which reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
“10.Reference to Advisory Board.- In every
case where a detention order has been made under this
Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks
from the date of detention of a person under the order,
place before the Advisory Board constituted by them
under Section 9, the grounds on which the order has
been made and the representation, if any, made by the
person affected by the order, and in the case where the
order has been made by an officer, also the report by
such officer under sub-Section (3) of Section 3.”
9. Thus, it is clear that the detenu has a right to submit a
representation either before the Advisory Board or before the
Government to reconsider the order of detention. Simultaneously,
the detenu may also submit a representation before the detaining
authority. However, this does not mean that the detaining authority is
required to pass orders on such representation within a period of 12
days from the date of order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
10. In the case on hand, the detenu submitted a
representation on the very date of the order of detention itself ie.,
20.05.2025. The same was duly received by the detaining authority
and rejected by order dated 04.06.2025. It is further made clear that
there is no provision under the Act which enables the detenu to make
a representation before the detaining authority for reconsideration of
the order of detention within a period of 12 days from the date of
detention order. However, the representation submitted by the detenu
dated 20.05.2025 was considered by the detaining authority and the
same was rejected by order dated 04.06.2025. Therefore, there is no
violation of the provisions under Section 3(3) of the Act 14 of 1982.
In fact, the detaining authority is not required to grant such liberty to
the detenu to submit a representation within a period of 12 days
from the date of detention order in the grounds of detention, since
the Act does not confer any right to the detenu to make a
representation before the detaining authority within a period of 12
days from the date of detention order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
11. Insofar as the aspect of delay is concerned, the detenu
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2025 and
the detention order came to be passed on 20.05.2025.
12. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the
detaining authority had relied upon three adverse cases and one
ground case. Therefore, the sponsoring authority was required to
collect all the relevant materials and place the same before the
detaining authority for passing an order of detention under Act 14 of
1982. Therefore, within a reasonable time, the sponsoring authority
collected all the materials and submitted them to the detaining
authority and the detaining authority passed the detention order
within a period of 30 days from the date of remand by the detenu.
Hence, it cannot be said that there was any unexplained delay on the
part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order under
Act 14 of 1982.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
13. The detention order and connected materials were
placed before the Advisory Board. Before the Advisory Board, the
detenu did not make any representation. After conducting due
enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the detenu, the
Advisory Board submitted its report to the Government on
19.06.2025. Even thereafter, the detenu did not submit any
representation to the Government while the report of the Advisory
Board was under consideration for confirmation of the order of
detention. On receipt of the report from the Advisory Board, the
Government confirmed the order of detention by order dated
10.08.2025. The order of confirmation was duly communicated to
the detenu on 16.08.2025. Only thereafter, the detenu once again
made a representation before the Government on 19.08.2025 ie.,
subsequent to the order of confirmation dated 10.08.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
14. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the detenu
submitted a representation only before the detaining authority, as
mentioned in the grounds of detention. After receipt of the said
representation, the detaining authority rejected the same by order
dated 04.06.2025. Though the Act does not provide any right or
opportunity to submit a representation before the detaining authority
for reconsideration of the order of detention, the detaining authority,
in a stereotypical manner in the grounds of detention, had granted
such liberty to the detenu to submit a representation within a period
of 12 days from the date of detention order. Since Section 3(3) of the
Act does not confer any such right upon the detenu to make a
representation to the detaining authority within a period of 12 days
from the date of order of detention, the Judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not helpful to the case
on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
15.In view of the above, the detenu has failed to make out
any ground to set aside the order of detention passed by the second
respondent. Consequently, this Habeas Corpus Petition is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
06.01.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ps
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
