[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Lailathu Nisha vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 22 January, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.807 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.807 of 2025
Lailathu Nisha ... Petitioner
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District, Thanajvur
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Superintendent of Police
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District
5. The Inspector of Police
Thogur Police Station
Thanjavur District
(Crime No.41 of 2025) ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.807 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned detention order dated 22.06.2025 made in P.D.No.31 of
205 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Mansoor Ali,
son of Hameed aged 36 years who has been confined in Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvasivakumar
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., SMansoor Ali,
son of Hameed aged 36 years . The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in P.D.No.31 of 2025 dated 22.06.2025
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
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 submitted
that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page nos.36,38,39,40
and 41 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
copies of page nos.36,38,39,40 and 41 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
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
prejudice caused to him in making an effective
representation. What applies to a document would
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
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 the page nos.36,38,39,40 and 41 of the booklet has impaired his
constitutional right to make an effective representation against the
impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 pm )
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 P.D.No.31 of 2025 dated 22.06.2025, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mansoor Ali, son of
Hameed aged 36 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 04:49:18 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District, Thanajvur
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Superintendent of Police
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District
5. The Inspector of Police
Thogur Police Station
Thanjavur District
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:18 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 04:49:18 pm )
