Dismissed

Muthulakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Nov 2025HCP(MD)/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six habeas corpus petitions challenged preventive detention orders branding the detenus Drug Offenders under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 after a Ganja seizure. The Court found documents legible, translations adequate, no substantial delay in detention or in rejecting representations, and held Ganja possession affecting public health satisfies public order. All petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; all habeas corpus petitions dismissed and detention orders sustained.

Muthulakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 11.11.2025

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 17.11.2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶9

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513 & 514 of 2025

¶10

Muthulakshmi

¶11

... Petitioner in

¶12

H.C.P.(MD)No.513/2025

¶13

Lourdhu Arputharaj

¶14

... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD)No.514/2025

¶15

-vs-

¶16

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep By, The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶18

The Inspector of Police,

¶19

Page 1 of 24

¶20

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

¶21

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶22

Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶23

The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. . ... Respondents in H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513 & 514/2025

¶24

Prayer in H.C.P.(MD)No.513 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.23/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.03.2025 against the petitioner's husband, the detenue herein, now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Thiru.Ganesh Muthukumar, S/o.Arumugapandi, aged about 37 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶25

Prayer in H.C.P.(MD)No.514 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.27/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.03.2025 against the petitioner's son, the detenue herein, now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Thiru.Alex Sargunam, S/o.Lourdhu Arputharaj, aged about 27 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶26

_____________ Page 2 of 24_

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶29

H.C.P.(MD)No.580 of 2025

Santha Kumari

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶34

The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District,.

¶35

The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. .

¶36

... Respondents

¶37

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order in No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.03.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same by setting the detenue namely Murugaperumal, S/o.Natarajan, aged 27/2024 years and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶38

H.C.P.(MD)No.622 of 2025

Duraichi

... Petitioner

-vs-

_____________ Page 3 of 24_

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶45

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – 600 009.

¶46

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶47

The Superintendent of Prisons, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. .

¶48

... Respondents

¶49

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in No. 26/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.03.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue by name Sakthivel, son of Govindhasamy aged about 28 years, now detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶50

H.C.P.(MD)No.663 of 2025

Rani

... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶55

_____________ Page 4 of 24_

¶56

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

¶57

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶58

The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶59

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶60

The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City. . ... Respondents

¶61

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Detention Order No.25/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.03.2025 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the the detenue namely Ramesh, S/o.Mathialagan, aged about 24 years, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and set him at liberty.

¶62

H.C.P.(MD)No.819 of 2025

¶63

S.Kanniammal @ Susila ... Petitioner

¶64

-vs-

¶65

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶66

_____________ Page 5 of 24_

¶67

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

¶68

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶69

The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

¶70

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. . ... Respondents

¶71

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in No.28/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 22.03.2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenue namely the petitioner's son ie., Muthukumar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Ravi Subaiah, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶72

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumar in H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513 and 514/2025 Mr.K.Sivabalan, for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy in H.C.P.(MD)No.580/2025 Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi in H.C.P.(MD)No.622/2025 Mr.V.Sasikumar, in H.C.P.(MD)No.663/2025 Mr.N.Pragalathan, in H.C.P.(MD)No.819/2025

¶73

_____________ Page 6 of 24_

¶74

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

¶75

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶76

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, (In all H.C.Ps) Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶77

COMMON ORDER

¶78

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

¶79

The detenus had been detained by the second respondent by his orders in Nos.23/BCDFGISSSV/2025, 27/BCDFGISSSV/2025, 24/BCDFGISSSV/2025, 26/BCDFGISSSV/2025, 25/BCDFGISSSV/ 2025 and 28/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 22.03.2025, holding them to be “Drug Offenders” as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said orders are under challenge in these Habeas Corpus Petitions.

¶80

2. All the detenus were accused in FIR in Crime No.110 of 2025, registered by the Palayamkottai Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned counsel for

¶81

_____________ Page 7 of 24_

¶82

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

¶83

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶84

the petitioners advanced arguments raising common grounds and therefore, a common order is passed.

¶85

3 . We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the

¶86

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

¶87

4. The first ground raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that several of the documents which had been submitted were hand written and that they were illegible. In this connection, a reference was drawn to the copies of the confidential report received and the documents relating to the search of the accused.

¶88

5 . We have perused the records and though the said

¶89

documents have been written in hand, they are in Tamil and are clearly legible and readable. We would therefore, reject this ground raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶90

_____________ Page 8 of 24_

¶91

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

¶92

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶93

6 . The second ground raised was again related to the confession of the accused, wherein it had been stated that the person making the confession and the co-accused identified the Ganja packets. After drawing attention to this particular portion, learned counsels pointed out that in the confession of the co-accused, the very same wordings were found and his name was also given. We hold that this cannot be ground to be urged to quash the detention order as this is only a document referred to by the Detaining Authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction.

¶94

7. The third ground raised is that several other documents

¶95

particularly the documents relating to the seizure mahazar and the list of properties forwarded to the Magistrate were also written in free hand and not readable.

¶96

8. We have carefully perused the said documents and though they are written in hand, they are in Tamil and legible. We hold that by the provision of the documents of such nature, there has not been any

¶97

_____________ Page 9 of 24_

¶98

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

¶99

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶100

specific denial of opportunity to make effective representation. We would therefore, reject this particular ground also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶101

9 . The next ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is that

¶102

there has been a defective translation with respect to the form of remand warrant. Any translation could only be a concise presentation of the original version and it is not a question of defective translation, but the essence has been properly translated and forwarded. We do not find that prejudice had been caused by the translated material which had been supplied to the detenus. This ground is also rejected by us.

¶103

10 . The next ground is that the translation of the petition

¶104

seeking bail wherein the serial number of the accused have not been properly given. We had examined the translated version and we are satisfied that the bail petition has been translated in a proper manner and there could always be a minor error but which could not be termed as denial of proper opportunity for making effective representation.

¶105

_____________ Page 10 of 24_

¶106

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

¶107

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶108

Moreover, the bail petition has been preferred only by the detenus by their counsels and therefore, they could not claim ignorance of the same.

¶109

11. The next ground raised by the learned counsel is with respect to the delay in passing the detention order. It has been claimed that there has been no direct link between the date of arrest and the date of passing of the detention order. A perusal of the records show that the detention order had been passed within around 30 days from the date of arrest of the accused. The Sponsoring Authority had to necessarily collect the documents from the Forensic Laboratory to satisfy himself about the nature of the contraband seized and the report which had been forwarded indicating that they were Ganja and he also had obtained a report from the Medical Officer about the effects of smoking Ganja. There has been no substantial delay in passing the detention order. We would therefore, reject this particular ground raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶110

_____________ Page 11 of 24_

¶111

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

¶112

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶113

12 . The next ground raised is that the contraband seized in

¶114

the instant case was about 16 kgs and the Detaining Authority had referred to a parallel case wherein, there was a seizure of 1.200 kgs of Ganja and bail had been granted in that particular case and citing that as a possible precedent, the Detaining Authority had stated that there is a possibility of the detenus also coming out on bail. The learned counsel argued that the Detaining Authority should have taken into consideration

¶115

the difference in the quantum of the contraband seized between the two cases.

¶116

13 . The consideration for grant of bail remains the same for intermediate quantity. Here even though the quantity is substantial, the Detaining Authority can only look into the possibility of coming out on bail by comparing a similar case not necessarily of the same quantity of Ganja, but where the quantity is also categorised as intermediate quantity. Thus, we find no irregularity in examining the possibility of coming out of on bail, merely because, the quantity seized 16 kgs. The only subjective satisfaction which the Detaining Authority has to arrive at is to

¶117

_____________ Page 12 of 24_

¶118

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

¶119

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶120

examine whether normal criminal law would be sufficient to prevent the accused from indulging with similar activities or whether the nature of the offence requires passing of a preventive detention order. We hold that the Detaining Authority has properly evaluated the possibility of coming out of on bail and had stated that as a factor to come to subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. We reject this ground raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶121

14 . The further ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is about the delay in examining and passing orders on the representation. It had been contended that the representation was dated 08.05.2025 and the same had been rejected on 15.05.2025. In this connection, we had called for the original records from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City and also from the Secretariat at Chennai. We had verified the records and we find that there has been no substantial delay in examining the file and in passing the rejection order. It had moved from desk to desk in the normal course and has been dealt with properly. We would therefore, reject this particular ground raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶122

_____________ Page 13 of 24_

¶123

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

¶124

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶125

15. The next ground raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that a further representation had been given on 07.07.2025 and this had been rejected on 12.07.2025 and that there was a delay in passing the rejection order. As stated above, all these representations have been given nearly after four months after the passing of the detention order. As a matter of fact, the representations had also been given after the filing of the Habeas Corpus Petitions. Once the Court is in seizin of the matter, then the Government can never be expected to pass any order relating to the representations. We had, however, examined the files from the office of the Commissionarate at Tirunelveli City and from the Secretariat at Chennai and we find that there has been no delay in passing the order.

¶126

16 . Further ground raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the Detaining Authority had stated that the detenus had been in possession of the Ganja with intention to sell the same and that there was no material for such a conclusion reached by the Detaining Authority. We must however, point out that the quantity of Ganja seized

¶127

_____________ Page 14 of 24_

¶128

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

¶129

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶130

was about 16 kgms and certainly, the detenus would have been in possession of that quantity only to make profit of the same. The fact possession is an issue to be determined during trial. But the fact is that there has been substantial quantity of Ganja seized and recovered from the detenus. We find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Detaining Authority that the detenus would have been in possession only to make profit out of the contraband seized.

¶131

17 . The further ground raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that there was no adverse case and there were no material produced that there was a possibility of coming out of on bail. We would again reiterate that grant or denial of bail is the discretion of the Court and the Detaining Authority could never predict that in a particular case, bail could be granted or that bail could be denied. The Detaining Authority can only examine the possibility of the bail being granted and the necessity therefore to pass the detention order. We find no infirmity in that conclusion reached by Detaining Authority. The learned counsels had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶132

_____________ Page 15 of 24_

¶133

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

¶134

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶135

S.L.P.(Crl)No.14740 of 2024 [Dhanyam Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.].

¶136

There was a reference of an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 [Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs.

¶137

State of Telangana & Ors.], in which it had been observed as follows:

¶138

“18. Similarly, in Nenavath Bujji etc. v. State of Telangana& Ors., this Court observed :

¶139

“32. The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression ‘law and order’ is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, ‘Public order’ has a narrower ambit, and could be affected by only such contravention, which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach, of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and order only. In other words, the true

¶140

_____________ Page 16 of 24_

¶141

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

¶142

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶143

distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different.”

¶144

(Emphasis supplied)

¶145

18. It had been contended that the act of selling Ganja does not affect the public order and therefore, passing of the detention order stands vitiated. But, however, the explanation to the definition of 'public order' in Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, extended to 'public health'. Smoking or consuming the Ganja naturally affects public health and therefore, we hold that the facts of this case is distinguishable. In the case relied on by the learned counsel, the detenue therein was detained as

¶146

_____________ Page 17 of 24_

¶147

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

¶148

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶149

a Goonda whereas in the instant case, the detenus had been detained as Drug Offenders.

¶150

19. The learned counsels for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in H.C.P.(MD)No.1072 of 2025 [Mythili Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.] , wherein one of us [ C.V.Karthikeyan ] was a member, wherein, the detention order had been quashed, when the remand order had been written down in free hand. We had examined the remand orders in the present case and we had already noted that they are readable and legible and moreover, the typed Tamil version and the English version had also been given. This is a distinguishing factor from the order cited by the learned counsels.

¶151

20 . The learned counsels had also cited the judgment in H.C.P.(MD)No.494 of 2025 [Mooli @ Balamurugan Vs. State of Tamil

¶152

Nadu & Ors.], whrerein again one of us [C.V.Karthikeyan] was a member. In that particular case, since the list of properties sent to the Magistrate and furnished to the detenue were illegible, the detention

¶153

_____________ Page 18 of 24_

¶154

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

¶155

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶156

order had been quashed. We had, however, carefully perused the documents furnished relating to the seizure and the list of properties forwarded to the Magistrate and we had already observed that they are legible and readable. This is a significant distinguishing factor from the reasoning given in the earlier order.

¶157

21. The learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 1 LW (Crl) 369 [Rajeswari Vs. Secretary to Government and another] , with respect to the delay in considering the representation. In the instant case, we had examined the files from the Commissionarate at Tirunelveli and also from the Secretariat at Chennai and we find that there has been no significant delay in examining the representation.

¶158

22. In H.C.P.(MD)No.513 of 2025, the representation had

¶159

been received on 21.04.2025 and had been rejected on 23.04.2025 and communicated to the detenu on 25.04.2025.

¶160

_____________ Page 19 of 24_

¶161

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

¶162

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶163

23 . In H.C.P.(MD)No.514 of 2025, the representation had

¶164

been received on 22.04.2025 and had been rejected on 24.04.2025 and communicated to the detenu on 26.04.2025.

¶165

24. In H.C.P.(MD)No.580 of 2025, the representation had

¶166

been received on 05.05.2025 and had been rejected on 07.05.2025 and communicated to the detenu on 09.05.2025. In this case, it had been contended that in the counter filed to the Habeas Corpus Petition, the date had been differently given. But we had verified with the original records and we find that that it had been rejected on 09.05.2025.

¶167

25 . In H.C.P.(MD)No.622 of 2025, the representation had

¶168

been received on 07.04.2025 and had been rejected on 09.04.2025 and communicated to the detenu on 11.04.2025. It must be noted that 10.04.2025 was a Government Holiday.

¶169

26 . In H.C.P.(MD)No.663 of 2025, the representation had

¶170

been received on 03.04.2025 and had been rejected on 07.04.2025 and

¶171

_____________ Page 20 of 24_

¶172

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

¶173

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶174

communicated to the detenu on 09.04.2025. It must be noted that 05.04.2025 and 06.04.2025 were Government Holidays. Even in this case, again it had been stated that further representation dated 02.05.2025 given by the wife of the detenu had been rejected on 15.05.2025 and that there was a delay and that in the counter, however, it had been stated that it had been rejected on 08.05.2025. We had examined the original records and we find that there has been no delay and it had been actually rejected on 08.05.2025.

¶175

27 . In H.C.P.(MD)No.819 of 2025, the representation had been received on 14.07.2025 and had been rejected on 16.07.2025 and communicated to the detenu on 18.07.2025.

¶176

28. It is thus seen that in all the cases, the representations have been dealt with as expeditiously as possible and the delay cannot be said to be significant. We therefore, reject the ground advanced that there has been a delay in examining the representations given.

¶177

_____________ Page 21 of 24_

¶178

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

¶179

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025

¶180

29. In view of the discussions above, we are of the opinion

¶181

that no grounds have been raised to quash the detention orders in any of the above Habeas Corpus Petitions. Accordingly, all the Habeas Corpus Petitions stand dismissed.

¶182

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 17.11.2025

¶183

vsm

¶184

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

¶185

_____________ Page 22 of 24_

¶186

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

¶187

H.C.P.(MD)Nos.513, 514, 580, 622, 663 and 819 of 2025