Allowed

Vijaya v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Nov 2025HCP(MD)/312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a wife seeking release of her husband detained under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Ordinance for being a sexual offender, this High Court held that the failure to provide the detenu with the initial Remand Order relied upon made the detention order illegal. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent and quashed the detention order, directing release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order P.D.No.77/2024 passed by the second respondent dated 24.12.2024 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in any other case.

Vijaya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

Vijaya

... Petitioner

-vs-

State through Tamilnadu, Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector, Thanjavur District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District. Crime No. 39/2024

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Detention Order in P.D.No.77/2024 dated 24.12.2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, Suresh (aged 39), S/o.Govindarasu before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Trichy.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J. )

¶23

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu namely Suresh, S/o.Govindarasu, aged about 39 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.77/2024, dated 24.12.2024, holding him to be a “Sexual Offender” as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶27

2 . We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

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

¶29

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 not furnished with the copy of the 'initial Remand Order dated 25.11.2024' relied on by the Detaining Authority. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶30

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the 'initial Remand Order dated 25.11.2024', was not furnished to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention .

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶34

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 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

¶36

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶39

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.

¶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

¶42

in all force to the case on hand. The non-furnishing of remand order 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.

¶43

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶46

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

¶47

the order of detention in P.D.No.77/2024, dated 24.12.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suresh, S/o.Govindarasu, aged about 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

vsm

¶49

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 11.11.2025

¶50

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

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶52

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

¶53

H.C.P.(MD)No.312 of 2025

¶54

¶55

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶56