[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Karthick @ Karthikeyan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 6 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1413 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.1413 of 2025
Karthick @ Karthikeyan ... Petitioner/Detenu
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai-625 016. ... Respondents
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 Cr.M.P.No.
17/Goonda/2025, dated 07.03.2025 and quash the same and direct the
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1413 of 2025
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Karthick @ Karthikeyan, son of Manikandan, aged about 19 years, now
detained as “Goonda” 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., Karthick @ Karthikeyan,
son of Manikandan, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.17/Goonda/2025,
dated 07.03.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under
Section 2(f) 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: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on Form 91
relating to the articles seized from the accused, which is available at Page
No.71 of the booklet and it is indecipherable. It is, therefore, stated that
the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective
representation.
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:
''6. The short question that falls for our
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
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
non-supply of document has to be supported by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
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 Form-91 relating to the articles seized from the accused has
impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation
against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
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 Cr.M.P.No.17/Goonda/2025, dated 07.03.2025,
by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz.,
Karthick @ Karthikeyan, S/o.Manikandan, aged about 19 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: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai-625 016.
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.
am
06.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 10:47:08 am )
