ChithraW/o.Sampath,M/o. Vinayagamoorthy (Detenu),No.32, Thulukkanathamman Koil Street,Ambedkar Nagar, Nandivaram,Guduvanchery, Vandalur v. Tambaram City
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-07-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANHCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025 ChithraW/o.Sampath,M/o. Vinayagamoorthy (Detenu),No.32, Thulukkanathamman Koil Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Nandivaram, Guduvanchery, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu - 603 202...Petitioner(s) in HCP.No.2626 of 2025 BharathyW/o. Rajababu, Mo.R.Sakthivel, (Detenue),No.59, Bajanai Kovil Street, Nandivaram, Guduvanchery, Vadalur Taluk, Chengalpattu-603 202..Petitioner(s) in HCP.No.2627 of 2025 SaraswathiW/o Rajivgandhi,M/o Vishal (Detenue),No.25, Thulukkanathamman Koil Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Guduvancherry, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu...Petitioner(s) in HCP.No.2630 of 2025Vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.__________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos.
2626, 2627 and 2630 of 20252.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai -119.3.The Inspector of Police (Crime),T-8, Guduvancherry Police Station, Guduvancherry, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalapattu District...Respondent(s) in all HCP’s4. Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai- 600 066... Respondent in HCP.Nos.2626 and 2627 of 20254. Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai- 600 066... Respondent in HCP.No.2630 of 2025 Prayer in HCP No. 2626 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ of direction to call for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dt. 01.11.2025 in vide Memo No. 154/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue Vinayagamoorthy, S/o.Sampath, aged 23 years now confined in Central prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
Prayer in HCP No. 2627 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the Impugned order detention dated 01.11.2025 in vide memo __________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025No.153/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, passed by the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenue Sakthivel, S/o. Rajababu, aged 22 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon’ble court and set him at liberty and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. Prayer in HCP No. 2630 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ order or direction or any other writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the Impugned order of detention dated 01.11.2025 in vide no.
152/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenue Vishal, s/o Rajivgandhi, aged 19 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty. In all HCP’sFor Petitioner(s):Mr.D.Prasanna KumarFor Respondent(s):Mr. C.R. MalarvannanCounsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)Common Order(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)In HCP.No.2626 of 2025, one S.Vinayagamoorthi, aged 23 years, S/o Sampath, has suffered an order of detention dated 01.11.2025 and his mother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order.__________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 20252. In HCP.No.2627 of 2025, one R.Sakthivel, aged 22 years, S/o Raja Babu, has suffered an order of detention dated 01.11.2025 and his mother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order.3.
In HCP.No.2630 of 2025, one R.Vishal, aged 22 years, S/o Rajiv Gandhi, has suffered an order of detention dated 01.11.2025 and his mother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all HCP’s has raised various grievances as against the impugned order of detention. They also point out that the Special Report that forms an important basis for the grounds of detention, is not even dated.5. We have heard both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal side) for the respondents in all HCP’s.6. We have perused the Special Report which is placed at page 121 of the booklets furnished. As rightly pointed out, we find the same undated. Insofar as the Special Report is one of the important documents, based on which the decision to detain the detenus has been taken, the same ought to have been dated, to establish credibility.
7. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the __________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025said date, the special report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful. That apart, in the absence of a date, the proximity of the document to the incriminating events is also lost, and to this extent, there is a snappage of the link between that document and the other events. 8. Further in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (2011 [5] SCC 244), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.9.
Further, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenus will be enlarged on bail is really no satisfaction at all. Admittedly, no bail application has been filed by the detenus in HCP.Nos.2626 and 2627 of 2025 and the bail application filed by the detenu in HCP.No.2630 of 2025 is still pending. Despite this, the authority goes on to state that he believes that the detenus would be enlarged on bail for which there is no basis at all. There is no statement that has been recorded from the relatives of the detenus and hence the same is mere ipse dixit.10. That apart, the detaining authority refers to the confession statement of the detenus in the detention order. However, those statements have not been __________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025placed in the booklet furnished to the detenus. Instead a confession statement of one Ajay, who is not an accused in this matter has been placed in the booklet.11.
Operative part
In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.154/2025, BBCDEFGISSSV No.153/2025, and BBCDEFGISSSV No.152/2025, all dated 01.11.2025 are set aside.12. The detenus, viz., S.Vinayagamoorthi, S/o. Sampath, aged 23 years, R.Sakthivel, S/o.Raja Babu, aged 22 years, and R.Vishal, S/o. Rajiv Gandhi, aged 19 years, who are now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 20-07-2026slIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesNote to Registry: Issue Today. To1.The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City,__________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025 Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai -119.
The Inspector of Police (Crime),T-8, Guduvancherry Police Station, Guduvancherry, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalapattu District.
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai- 600 066.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai- 600 066.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order),Secretariat, Fort. St.George, Chennai -9.__________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 2025DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN J.SLHCP Nos. 2626, 2627 and 2630 of 202520-07-2026__________Page 8 of 8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 01 Nov 2025. The bench was ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.