Wife's habeas corpus petition against a goonda detention order. The detention order was passed on 01.03.2025 but sent to the Government for approval only on 06.03.2025, violating Section 3(3) which requires approval within twelve days with prompt reporting. The Court quashed the detention on this ground alone 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.
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.666 of 2025
B.Sri Devi ... Petitioner
vs.
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in H.S(M)Confdl No.21/2025 dated 01.03.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the
Page No.1 of 6
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, the petitioner's husband i.e., Balamurugan, aged about 38 years, S/o. Subramanian, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. ]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Balamurugan, son of Subramanian, aged about 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S(M)Confdl No.21/2025 dated 01.03.2025, 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.
the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
Page No.2 of 6
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
3.
submit that the order of detention was passed on 01.03.2025. However, the detention order was not sent to the Government for approval within a reasonable period and it was sent to the Government only on 06.03.2025. In this regard, he relied on Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum- Grabbers, Act, 1982.
14 of 1982:-
''3(3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government''
Page No.3 of 6
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
detention was passed on 01.03.2025 and the same was sent to the Government for approval only on 06.03.2025. The date of detention order 01.03.2025 falls on Saturday, however, the detaining authority had taken five days time for sending the same to the Government for
approval which is a clear violation of Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. On this sole ground alone, the order of detention cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Balamurugan, son of Subramanian, aged about 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 15.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala
To:
Page No.4 of 6
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
Page No.5 of 6
HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.666 of 2025 DATED : 15.12.2025
Page No.6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Was the detention order vitiated because the detaining authority failed to send it to the State Government for approval within the period mandated by Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Sri Devi
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
R.POORNIMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
