Allowed¶49

Yashodhamma v. The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Madras HC7 Aug 2025HCP/1435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court habeas corpus; preventive detention; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; Drug Offender; detention order C3/D.O.No.9/2025 dated 30.04.2025; District Collector and District Magistrate Tirupathur; Central Prison Salem; illegible copies in booklet; pages 6 to 8 Volume II; deprivation of effective representation; Article 22(5) safeguards; Article 226 writ; Powanammal (1999) 2 SCC 413; detention order quashed/set aside; detenu set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in C3/D.O.No.9/2025 dated 30.04.2025 set aside; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detenu Santhosh directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. ¶49

Yashodhamma Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished illegible copies (pages 6 to 8 of Volume II of the booklet), depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation against the order of detention.

¶30

Court's answer

Furnishing illegible copies of a vital document (pages 6 to 8 of Volume II of the booklet supplied to the detenu) would deprive the detenu of making an effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Powanammal (safeguards under Article 22[5], including supply of material in a language understood by the detenu) and the fact of illegible copies furnished, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP.No.1435 of 2025, Madras High Court, decided 07.08.2025) filed by the mother of detenu Santhosh (aged 35, S/o. Mani), detained at Central Prison, Salem as a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) pursuant to detention order C3/D.O.No.9/2025 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupathur. Sole ground urged: pages 6 to 8 of Volume II of the booklet furnished to the detenu were illegible, depriving him of an effective representation. The Division Bench (M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.) held that furnishing illegible copies of a vital document deprives the detenu of making an effective representation against the detention order, consistent with the Article 22[5] safeguards discussed in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413. The detention order was set aside and the detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1435 of 2025

¶7

YASHODHAMMA ... Petitioner/ mother of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu rep by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶10

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirupathur District, Thirupathur

¶11

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem, Salem District

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi PEW Police Station, Thirupathur District

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in C3/D.O.No.9/2025 dated 30.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to produce the detenu namely Thiru. Santhosh aged 35 S/o.Mani, now detained at Central Prison, Salem before the Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Gokulvisvas C R For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

¶22

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶23

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Santhosh aged 35 S/o.Mani, now detained at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2025 issued against her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶27

Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶29

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. 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 copies in the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶31

4. On a perusal of Volume II of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.6 to 8 in the booklet furnished to the detenue, are illegible. This furnishing of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶35

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:

¶36

“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

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶40

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 nonsupply 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.

¶41

..... 16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply 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. ”

¶42

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

¶43

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶44

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

HCP.No.1435 of 2025

¶48

second respondent on 30.04.2025 in C3/D.O.No.9/2025, is hereby set aside

¶49

and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Santhosh, aged 35 S/o.Mani, now detained at Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 07.08.2025

¶51

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Anu

¶52

¶53