High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No.229 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 29.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.229 of 2025R.Mageswari... Petitionervs.1. State of Tamil Nadurep. by the Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George,Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District,Nagercoil.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli.4.The Superintendent of Prison,District Jail,Nagercoil,Kanniyakumari District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with detention order passed in P.D.No.50 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024 on the file of the Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 20252nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Veeramani, aged about 23 years, S/o. Bagavathi Perumal, now detained at the District Jail, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr. N. PragalathanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the father of detenu viz., Veeramani, S/o. Bagavathi Perumal, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.50 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024, 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. Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 20253. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible document at Page No. 91 of the Volume I of Booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He Would further submit that though the detenu was furnished with illegible document at Page No. 91 of the Volume I of Booklet, 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. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No. 91 of the Volume I of Booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible. Non furnishing of legible and clear copy of the vital documents would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 2025Honourable 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:''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 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 Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 2025equally 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 document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No. 91 of the Volume I of 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.Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 20257. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.50 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Veeramani, S/o. Bagavathi Perumal, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 29.07.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpTo:1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George,Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District,Nagercoil.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.4.The Superintendent of Prison,District Jail, Nagercoil,Kanniyakumari District.5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madars High Court,Madurai.Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.229 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No.229 of 2025DATED : 29.07.2025Page No.7 of 7