[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Kulothungan vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1078 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1078 of 2025
Kulothungan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur
3.The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Inspector of Police
Thirukkattupalli Police Station,
Thanjavur ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1078 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 relating to the detention of the petitioner's brother
namely Karikalan, brother of Parimelalagan, aged about 39 years
under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 17.06.2025 made in P.D.No.27 of 2023
passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce
the brother of the petitioner or body of the detenu Karikalan,
brother of Parimelalagan aged about 39 years now confined at
District Jail, Pudukottai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ragul
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 brother of the detenu viz.,
Karikalan, brother of Parimelalagan aged about 39 years. The
detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
P.D.No.27 of 2023 dated 17.06.2025 holding him to be a "Sexual
Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) 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.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
stated that detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody
on 04.05.2025 in pursuance to the registration of the First
Information Report in Crime No.95 of 2025 for the offence under
Section 95 of BNS and Section 7,8,9(m) and 10 of POCSO Act. The
detaining authority passed the detention order only on 17.06.2025
and there was an unexplained delay in passed the detention order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
That apart the detenu was served with illegible copy of the
confession statement which annexed in page Nos 34 to 37 of the
booklet.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by
filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay
in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it
cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and
therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early
as on 04.05.2025 and the detention order was passed on 17.06.2025.
This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order,
which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between
the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
detention has snapped. Thus, on this ground the impugned order
of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of
Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was
an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the
detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and
the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has
held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the
purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable
doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the
detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such
delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it
invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"20. It is manifestly clear from a
conspectus of the above decisions of this Court,
that the underlying principle is that if there is
unreasonable delay between the date of the order
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in
the same manner from the date of the proposal
and passing of the order of detention, such delay
unless satisfactorily explained throws a
considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority in passing the detention order and
consequently render the detention order bad and
invalid because the “live and proximate link”
between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the
detenu. A question whether the delay is
unreasonable and stands unexplained depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case."
7. Further the detenu was not served with legible copy of
the page nos.34 to 37 of the booklet, therefore, the detenu could
not able to make an effective representation to reconsider the
order of detention. Hence, on this ground also, the present
impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
8. 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. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the
document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
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, 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.''
9. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case
applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
furnishing of legible copy of the page nos.34 to 37 of the booklet
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.
10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention in P.D.No.27 of 2023 dated 17.06.2025,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Karikalan, brother of Parimelalagan, aged about 39 years, is
directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required
in connection with any other case.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
21.01.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur
3.The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Inspector of Police
Thirukkattupalli Police Station,
Thanjavur
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
aav
21.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:02 pm )
