[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Kaviyapriya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 21 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.936 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.936 of 2025
Kaviyapriya ... Petitioner
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram District
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the
second respondent in Detention order in No.28/D.O/2025 dated
19.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.936 of 2025
Saruhasan son of Balu aged about 29 years who is now detained in
Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja
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., Vijay, son of
Kanagaraj aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in No.28/D.O/2025 dated 19.06.2025
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: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the detenu was not served with legible copy of remand report which
is annexed in page no.19 of the booklet, therefore the detenu is deprived
of his valuable right to make an effective representation to reconsider the
order of detention.
4. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the
submission made the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents, it is revealed that the detenu was not served with legible
copy of remand report which is annexed in page no.19 of the booklet ,
therefore, the detenu could not able to make an effective representation to
reconsider the order of detention. Hence, on this sole ground, the present
impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
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: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 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
communicated the grounds and of being afforded
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 pm )
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 pm )
in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible
copy of remand report which is annexed in page no.19 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in No.28/D.O/2025 dated 19.06.2025, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Saruhasan son of
Balu aged about 29 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 02:49:06 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,
Ramanathapuram District
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:49:06 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 02:49:06 pm )
