Allowed

Jaya Priya v. The State of Tamilnadu

Preventive detention – habeas corpus

Madras HC30 Oct 2025HCP(MD)/784/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother's habeas corpus petition against a Goonda preventive detention order. The remand extension order relied on by the detaining authority was illegible, depriving the detenu of an effective representation under Article 22(5). Following Powanammal, the High Court quashed the detention and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order M.H.S.Confdl No.38/2025 dated 26.03.2025 set aside; detenu Mathesh Kannan to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Jaya Priya Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 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.784 of 2025

¶7

Jaya Priya ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu

¶8

-vs-

¶9

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

¶10

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison, Palaymkottai 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 connected with the detention order of the respondent NO.2 in M.H.S.Confdl No.38/2025 dated 26.03.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Mathesh Kannan, son of Asaithambi, aged about 19 years, now detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

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

¶15

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 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 Mathesh Kannan, son of Asaithambi, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No. 38/2025 dated 26.03.2025 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

¶23

detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 of 2025

¶27

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.

¶28

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:

¶29

''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

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 of 2025

¶33

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.

¶34

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.''

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 of 2025

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.38/2025 dated 26.03.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mathesh Kannan, son of Asaithambi, aged about 19 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.784 of 2025

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

¶49

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

¶50

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶52

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

¶53

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 of 2025

¶54

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶55

¶56

H.C.P.(MD)No.784 of 2025

¶57

30.10.2025

¶58

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶59

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

Jaya Priya v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Priya v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Ravichandran Vs Pasupathi

Lakshmanan Vs Dharmaraj

The Life Insurance Corporation Vs Maheswari

Poornima Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

G.Anbazhagan Vs 1.G.MAHESH (Died), 2. M.Annaperumayee

Sudalaivadivu Vs The State of Tamilnadu