Allowed

Palaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC30 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/1551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother's habeas corpus petition against a Goonda preventive detention order. The court found the remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority was not furnished to the detenu, depriving him of his right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation, quashed the detention order, and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order S.R.No.21/Goonda/2024 dated 24.09.2024 set aside; detenu Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

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

¶1

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1551 of 2024

Palaniammal

... Petitioner

vs.

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶11

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Detention Order S.R.No.21/Goonda/2024 dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar, S/o. Vazhivittan, aged 26 years who is now

¶14

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

¶15

Page No.1 of 8

¶16

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶17

detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Arihara Sudhan For Respondents: Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar, S/o. Vazhivittan, aged 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in S.R.No. 21/Goonda/2024 dated 24.09.2024, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Page No.2 of 8

¶25

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶26

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority, while detaining the detenu, has relied on the remand order, but the same has not been furnished to the detenu. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

¶27

On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the

¶28

remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the nonfurnishing of the said document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Page No.3 of 8

¶32

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶33

of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention order and that

¶34

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

''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

¶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

¶37

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

¶38

Page No.4 of 8

¶39

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶40

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.

¶41

... ...

¶42

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.''

¶43

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies

¶44

in all force to the case on hand, as we find that non-furnishing of the remand order relied on by the Detaining Authority to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation

¶45

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

¶46

Page No.5 of 8

¶47

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶48

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.

¶49

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.R.No.21/Goonda/2024 dated 24.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar, S/o. Vazhivittan, aged 26 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.] 30.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶51

To:

¶52

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶53

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

¶54

Page No.6 of 8

¶55

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶56

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶57

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

Page No.7 of 8

¶61

HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024

¶62

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

¶63

bala

¶64

ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.1551 of 2024 DATED : 30.06.2025

¶65

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

¶66

Page No.8 of 8

Palaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Thirumaniselvi Vs The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar

Sundar @ Yusuf Vs Ashokkumar

Nagamani Vs The Divisional Manager

Anbu Rose @ Anburoj Vs The Inspector of Police

Ayyappan Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthulakshmi Vs The Union Government