Allowed

Subbulakshmi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC25 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/1375/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention order challenged on the ground that the detenu was supplied an illegible copy of Page No.52 of Volume No.2 of the booklet relied on by the detaining authority. Following Powanammal, the court held this impaired the detenu's Article 22(5) right to make an effective representation and quashed the detention order, directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.91/2024 dated 19.09.2024 set aside; detenu Tirupathi directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Subbulakshmi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

Subbulakshmi

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, District Jail, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶18

respondent in Detention Order in 91/2024, dated 19.09.2024 quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Tirupathi, Son of Duraipandi, aged 38 years who is now detained in District Jail, Dindigul before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Senthil kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶22

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Tirupathi, Son of Duraipandi, aged 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.91/2024, dated 19.09.2024 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.

¶23

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶27

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶28

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 copy of Page No.52 of the Volume No.2 of the booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶29

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.52 of the Volume No.2 of the booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible. This furnishing of illegible copy and improper translation of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶30

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

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶34

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:

¶35

''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

¶36

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶39

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.

¶40

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.''

¶41

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.52 of the Volume No.2 of the booklet. This furnishing of illegible copy to the detenu, 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.

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶45

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.91/2024, dated 19.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Tirupathi, Son of Duraipandi, aged 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶46

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]

¶47

25.06.2025

¶48

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶49

trp

¶50

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶51

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

¶52

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶53

¶54

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶55

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶56

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶57

4.The Superintendent of Prison, District Jail, Dindigul

¶58

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶59

_____________ Page 7 of 8_

¶60

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

¶61

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶62

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA , J.

¶63

trp

¶64

H.C.P.(MD) No.1375 of 2024

¶65

25.06.2025

¶66

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

¶67

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

Subbulakshmi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbulakshmi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nattar Devi Vs The Home Secretary

Mary Vs The Home Secretary

Alankarakumar @ Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Taamarai selvi. S.G Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Velu Vs the authorized officer

K.Rama Vs The Home Secretary