Allowed
Jotheeswari v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Madras HCHCP(MD)/1546/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1546 of 2024
Jotheeswari
... Petitioner
vs.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in MHS.Confdl.No.84/2024, dated 27.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Lingaraj, S/o. Vairavanathan, aged about 33 years now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.
Page No.1 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
For Petitioner : M/s. R. Vinod Bharathi 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 wife of detenu viz., Lingaraj, S/o. Vairavanathan, aged about 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.84 / 2024, dated 27.10.2024, 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.
Page No.2 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
deprived of making effective representation.
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.21 to 27 of the Part I of the 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 Nos. 21 to 27 of the Part I of the 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 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
Page No.3 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
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 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.4 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
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 Nos.21 to 27 of the Part I 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in MHS.Confdl.No.84/2024, dated 27.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Lingaraj, S/o. Vairavanathan, aged about 33 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
Page No.5 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 16.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp To:
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.
Page No.6 of 7
HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.1546 of 2024
DATED : 16.07.2025
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether non-furnishing of legible copies of documents relied on by the detaining authority vitiates the preventive detention order 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
Jotheeswari
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District
The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court