A habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a detenu held as a Goonda. The court found the detenu was not served legible copies of certain booklet pages, impairing his right to effective representation, quashed the detention order and ordered his 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.1497 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P(MD). No.1497 of 2025
Sanjai @ Karuppu Sanjai,
... Petitioner
Vs.
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
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 second respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.27 of 2025 dated 20.04.2025 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Sanjay @ Karuppu Sanjai, S/o.Manikandan, aged 23
1/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
years, now detained as “Goonda” at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani,
For Respondent : 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 detenu viz., Sanjay @ Karuppu Sanjai, son of Manikandan aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.27 of 2025 dated 20.04.2025 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.
2. 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.
2/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page Nos.33, 35 and 37 of the booklet, therefore the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation to reconsider the order of detention.
5. 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
3/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
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:
''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
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 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
4/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
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.
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.''
6. We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies
in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of legible
copy of the page Nos.33, 35 and 37 of the booklet has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the
5/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.27 of 2025 dated 20.04.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sanjay @ Karuppu Sanjai, son of Manikandan aged about 23 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.] 12.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No LS
6/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
TO
7/8
HCP(MD). No.1497 of 2025
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J.
LS
H.C.P(MD) No.1497 of 2025
12.02.2026
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether non-furnishing of legible copies of pages 33, 35 and 37 of the booklet vitiated the detention order under preventive detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶6
(1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjai @ Karuppu Sanjai
The State of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District
The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
R. Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
