Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the veracity of the remand order passed on the detenu could be confirmed, the sponsoring authority not having enclosed it with the documents forwarded to the detaining authority to come to a subjective satisfaction. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon receipt of the enquiry report of the Additional Registrar II (Vigilance) FAC, and after the Additional Public Prosecutor explained that remand had been properly carried out at the hospital premises on an immobility certificate, the Court was satisfied with the report and no further directions were required.

Ratio / Principle

The Registry may return back the original records received from the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy, to the said court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (HCP(MD) No.697 of 2025, order dated 21-11-2025, order made by C.V. Karthikeyan J., bench including R. Vijayakumar J.). Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Vijayalakshmi, mother/wife-connected relative of the detenu, seeking quashing of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli) in Cr.M.P.No.14/2025 dt 29.03.2025 detaining Santhakumar under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda, and production of the detenu held in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. The Court had sought an enquiry because the remand order was not enclosed by the sponsoring authority among the documents forwarded to the detaining authority for subjective satisfaction. On the report of the Additional Registrar II (Vigilance) FAC — who recorded witness evidence at Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and collected records — and the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that remand was properly done at the hospital on an immobility certificate, the Court was satisfied with the report, required no further directions, and directed the Registry to return the original records to the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy. No order quashing the detention was passed; no monetary reliefs involved.

HCP(MD) NO. 697 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 21-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

HCP(MD) NO. 697 of 2025

Vijayalakshmi W/o.Pandiyan No.12/13 Society Street Thuvakudi Malai North Thiruverumbur Taluk Trichy District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

The State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home,Prohibition and Excise dept Fort St.George Chennai – 9.

The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District.

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Tiruchirappalli.

Respondent(s)

1/4

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

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K. M.Karunakaran For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.14/2025 dt 29.03.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Santhakumar, S/o Pandiyan, Male, aged about 25 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

We have received a report of the Additional Registrar II (Vigilance) FAC,

wherein, he had conducted an enquiry and recorded the evidence of the witnesses in the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, in Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy, from the Sub Court, Trichy, the Doctor, Department of Orthopaedics, K.A.PV.Government Medical College at Trichy and the Assistant Jailor, Central Prison, Trichy and also collected relevant records.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that immobility certificate was issued by the Doctor necessitating the Magistrate to go over to the hospital to remand the accused on whom subsequently the detention order has been passed.

2/4

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

We only wanted to verify the veracity of the remand order passed since it

was not enclosed by the sponsoring authority along with the documents forwarded to the detaining authority to come to a subjective satisfaction and the remand order was produced. It was for that reason we have sought enquiry to be conducted.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that remand had

been properly done but at the hospital premises.

We are satisfied with the report. No further directions are required.

The Registry may return back the original records received from the

Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy, to the said court.

(C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.) (R.VIJAYAKUMAR J.) 21-11-2025

CM

3/4

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

To

The State of Tamilnadu Rep by

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Home Prohibition and Excise dept

Fort St.George

Chennai - 9. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District.

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison

Tiruchirappalli.

4/4

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