Allowed

S.Kaleeswari v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/367/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging detention of petitioner's husband as a drug offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found only an intermediate quantity was seized in the ground case and there was unexplained delay in passing the detention order. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.92 of 2025 dated 05-12-2025 set aside; detenu Selvakarthik directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

S.Kaleeswari Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 08.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.367 of 2026

¶8

S.Kaleeswari

¶9

.. Petitioner / Wife of the detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District - 625 020.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.92 of 2025 dated 05-12-2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenue namely

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

the petitioner's husband I.e. Selvakarthik, aged about 25 years, S/o.Chellamuthu, now detained at the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name, Selvakarthik, aged about 25 years, S/o.Chellamuthu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.92 of 2025 dated 05-12-2025 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

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.

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus

¶26

Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is no adverse case against the detenue. The ground case involved 3 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantify for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.158 of 2025.

¶27

It was contended that in the ground case, intermediate quantity was involved, whereas the Detaining Authority in a casual manner has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted.

¶28

We are of the view that in the ground case, the quantity that is alleged to have been seized is only an intermediate quantity. Hence, it is not a serious offence under the NDPS Act, since it does not involve any commercial quantity, warranting passing of a detention order and the detenu could have been dealt with under regular penal law that is already available and there was no need for resorting to detention order under Act 14 of 1982.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

For this purpose, we rely on the judgment in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244) .

¶32

The another ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested on 06.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 05.12.2025. Hence, there is a delay of 30 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶33

In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the

¶34

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik

¶35

Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

¶36

The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent.

¶37

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.92 of 2025 dated 05-12-2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Selvakarthik,

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

aged about 25 years, S/o.Chellamuthu, is directed to be released forthwith

¶41

unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶42

(N.A.V.,J..) (S.S.Y.,J.,) 08.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶43

Indu