Allowed¶40

Sudalaivadivu v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC30 Oct 2025HCP(MD)/783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; habeas corpus; Goonda; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, Section 3(1); illegible remand extension order; deprivation of effective representation; Article 22(5) Constitution; Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 2 SCC 413 applied; detention order quashed; immediate release direction; Mayakrishnan @ Prakash; District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025; C.V.Karthikeyan and R.Vijayakumar, JJ.; 30.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Order of detention in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the second respondent set aside; detenu Mayakrishnan @ Prakash, S/o.Aarumugam, aged about 39 years, directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ¶40

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 detaining Mayakrishnan @ Prakash as a "Goonda" is illegal and should be set aside. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Accordingly, the court had no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order, allowing the Habeas Corpus Petition, setting aside the order of detention in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 and directing the release of the detenu forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the grounds of detention, although the remand order was extended, the remand extension order was illegible and could not be read, and this defect in a vital document would deprive the detenu of making an effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶26

Key takeaways

Applying Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, the court held that the non-furnishing of a legible copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority (at Page No.83 of the first booklet) impaired the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order, a right safeguarded by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) allowed; detention order in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, detaining Mayakrishnan @ Prakash as a "Goonda", set aside. Ground: the remand extension order relied upon by the Detaining Authority (Page No.83 of the first booklet) was furnished to the detenu in an illegible, indecipherable form, impairing his right safeguarded by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation against the preventive detention order; the Supreme Court decision in Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413 was applied. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case. Coram: C.V.Karthikeyan, J. (author) and R.Vijayakumar, J.; decided 30.10.2025.

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶7

Sudalaivadivu ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu

¶8

-vs-

¶9

State of Tamilnadu, 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli – 9.

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Mayakrishnan @ Prakash, S/o.Aarumugam, male, aged about 39 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

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

¶15

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name Mayakrishnan @ Prakash, S/o.Aarumugam, male, aged about 39 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Crl.M.P.No. 10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Though several points have been raised by the learned

¶22

counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that remand extension order is not legible and it is totally indecipherable. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶24

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

¶25

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶26

On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that remand order was extended. But the remand extension order is illegible and cannot be read. This defect in the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶27

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:

¶28

''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

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶30

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

¶31

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶32

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 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.

¶33

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.''

¶34

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶35

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

¶36

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶37

We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in

¶38

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.83 of the first Booklet. This illegible copy of remand extension 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.

¶39

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

¶40

order of detention in Crl.M.P.No.10/2025 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mayakrishnan @ Prakash, S/o.Aarumugam, male, aged about 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶41

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 30.10.2025

¶42

¶43

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.(MD)No.783 of 2025

¶46

¶47

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.