Allowed¶32

Palaniyammal v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC28 Apr 2026HCP/1933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; writ of habeas corpus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 2(f) Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; 'Goonda'; detention order BBCDEFGISSSV No.107/2025 dated 29.08.2025; Commissioner of Police Tambaram City; undated special report of sponsoring authority; compelling necessity doubtful; irrelevant material; Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 [5] SCC 244; detention order set aside; release of detenu; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; Detention Order BBCDEFGISSSV No.107/2025 dated 29.08.2025 set aside; detenu K.Shanmugavel directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. ¶32

Palaniyammal Vs The Secretary to the Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned preventive detention order can be sustained where the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The impugned detention order cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated; the compelling necessity to detain depends on the date of that report.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of the date of the sponsoring authority's report, the special report becomes irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful.

¶27

Key takeaways

Reliance placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 [5] SCC 244) that a detention order passed on irrelevant material is liable to be quashed; consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HCP No. 1933 of 2025 (Madras High Court; Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan; order pronounced by Sunder Mohan J.; 28-04-2026): Allowed. Palaniyammal, mother of detenu K. Shanmugavel (24 years), who was branded a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to a detention order dated 29.08.2025 in BBCDEFGISSSV No.107/2025 passed by the second respondent (Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City), sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench found the impugned order unsustainable solely because the special report sent by the sponsoring authority was undated: since the compelling necessity to detain depends on that date, its absence renders the special report irrelevant and the compelling necessity doubtful. Invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 [5] SCC 244) that a detention order passed on irrelevant material is liable to be quashed, the Court set aside the detention order and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶1

2026:MHC:1631

¶2

HCP No. 1933 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 28-04-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶9

HCP No. 1933 of 2025

Palaniyammal

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City.

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

¶16

The Inspector of Police T-7, Otteri Police Station, Tambaram City.

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent 29.08.2025 in BBCDEFGISSSV.No.107/2025 against the petitioner’s son K.Shanmugavel, Male aged 24 Years S/o.Kathavarayan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at Liberty.

¶19

Page1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

HCP No. 1933 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

¶25

The mother of the detenu – K.Shanmugavel, branded as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 29.08.2025.

¶26

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶27

We find on perusal of the record and on hearing the submissions on either side, the impugned order cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the said date, the special report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful.

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

HCP No. 1933 of 2025

¶31

Further in 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶32

5.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention

¶33

Order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order BBCDEFGISSSV No.107/2025 dated 29.08.2025 is set aside.

¶34

6.The detenu, viz., K.Shanmugavel, S/o.Kathavarayan, aged 24 years,

¶35

who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection, with any other case.

¶36

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 28-04-2026

¶37

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶38

TSG

¶39

Issue Order today.

¶40

__________ Page3 of 5

¶41

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