A habeas corpus petition challenged a preventive detention order detaining a man as a Goonda. Because the remand order relied on in the detention grounds was furnished illegibly, the detenu could not make an effective representation. The court quashed the detention order and directed release.
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.605 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
Devi
...Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
Vs.
Chennai-600 009.
Madurai.
... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
PRAYER:
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in his proceedings in Crl.M.P.No. 02/2025 (Gooda) dated 03.02.2025 and set aside the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenu, namely Muthukumar, S/o.Thiruppathy aged about 35 years, before this Court now confined in
in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Muthukumar, S/o.Thiruppathy aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Crl.M.P.No.02/2025 (Gooda) dated 03.02.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Page 2 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of
_____________ Page 3 of 8_
Tamil Nadu,
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
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:
''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
Page 4 of 8
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
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.
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.''
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.261 of the Booklet. This illegible copy 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
_____________ Page 5 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
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.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
16.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No CM
_____________ Page 6 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
To:
3.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
_____________ Page 7 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2025
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CM
H.C.P.(MD) No.605 of 2024
16.09.2025
_____________ Page 8 of 8_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether supplying an illegible copy of the remand order relied on by the detaining authority deprived the detenu of making an effective representation under Article 22(5), invalidating the detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶5
(1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Devi
The State of Tamil Nadu
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District
The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai
C.V. Karthikeyan
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
