[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mageswari vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 22 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1172 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1172 of 2025
Mageswari ... 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 Commissioner of Police
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli ... 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 No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated
25.06.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1172 of 2025
Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu namely Nambirajan, son of
Seenivasan male aged about 32 years who is detained in Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
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 wife of the detenu viz., Nambirajan,
son of Seenivasan aged about 32 years . The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated
25.06.2025 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: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page no.85 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 page no.85 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
Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
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
the opportunity of making an effective
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 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.''
6. 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 page no.85 of the booklet has impaired his constitutional right
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
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.53/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.06.2025,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Nambirajan, son of Seenivasan male aged about 32 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.]
22.01.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
aav
22.01.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:14 pm )
