Allowed

Kohila v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Jul 2025HCP(MD)/1441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wife challenged the preventive detention of her husband as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found that illegible documents supplied to the detenu impaired his right to make an effective representation and quashed the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu Aathinarayanan @ Narayanan directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Kohila Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1441 of 2024

Kohila

... Petitioner

vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.

¶11

The District Collector cum District Magistrate, O/o the District Collectorate, Tirunelveli.

¶12

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.185 / 2024, dated 22.10.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent on the petitioner's husband namely, Aathinarayanan @ Narayanan, S/o. Thangappa, aged 32 years has been detained and branded as “Goonda” under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶18

Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu) Act,, 14/1982 and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Veerapandi

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner is the wife of detenu viz., Aathinarayanan @ Narayanan, S/o. Thangappa, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.185 / 2024, dated 22.10.2024, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the

¶26

Page No.2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶29

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 Nos.55 and 117 of the 1^st booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶30

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 Nos.55 and 117 of the 1^st 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.

¶31

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.55 and 117 of the 1^st 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.

¶32

6. 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

¶33

Page No.3 of 7

¶34

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

¶35

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶36

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:

¶37

''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 equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the

¶38

Page No.4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶41

document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.

¶42

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.''

¶43

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 Nos.55 and 117 of the 1^st 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.

¶44

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order

¶45

Page No.5 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

HCP(MD)No.1441 of 2024

¶48

of detention in M.H.S. Confdl. No.185 / 2024, dated 22.10.2024, passed by the

¶49

second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aathinarayanan @ Narayanan, S/o. Thangappa, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 08.07.2025

¶51

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp

¶52

To:

¶53