BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
Detention order M.H.S.Confdl.No.161/2024 dated 22.09.2024 set aside; detenu Aathi Ganesh directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
Meenakshisundaram
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
Tirunelveli District.
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
Page No.1 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
4.The Inspector of Police, Cheranmahadevi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl. No.161/2024 dated 22.09.2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu namely, Aathi Ganesh, aged about 23 years, S/o.Meenakshisundaram, before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ]
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Aathi Ganesh, aged about 23 years, S/o.Meenakshisundaram. The detenu has been
Page No.2 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 161/2024 dated 22.09.2024 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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.
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 the Remand Order relied on by the Detaining Authority, more particularly at Page No.65 of the 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
Page No.3 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
counter. He would further submit that furnishing of illegible copy of remand order documents relied on by the Detaining Authority to the detenue, will not cause any prejudice to the detenu and on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. Therefore prays for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
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 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
Page No.4 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
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 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.
Page No.5 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
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.''
7. 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.65 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.
8 . In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.161/2024 dated 22.09.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,Aathi Ganesh, aged about 23 years, S/o.Meenakshisundaram, is directed to be released
Page No.6 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other
case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 07.07.2025
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No rm
To:
Page No.7 of 8
H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
rm
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1538 of 2024
DATED : 07.07.2025
Page No.8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether furnishing an illegible copy of the Remand Order relied on by the Detaining Authority deprived the detenu of effective representation under Article 22(5).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶6
(1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Meenakshisundaram
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai
The Inspector of Police, Cheranmahadevi Police Station
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
