Petition challenging detention of husband as a 'Goonda'. Court held failure to provide legible copies of booklet pages deprived detenu of right to effective representation under Article 22(5).
The detention order dated 03.07.2025 is set aside and the detenu Anantharam is directed to be released forthwith unless detained in another case.
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.
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
Muthulakshmi
... Petitioner
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.49of 2025 detention order dated 03.07.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or
_____________ Page 1 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
body of the detenue namely Anantharam son of Natarajan, aged 42 years (now detained in Central Prison, Trichy) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar
For Respondents : 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 wife of the detenu viz., Anantharam
son of Natarajan, aged 42 years . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.49of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 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.
_____________ Page 2 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page nos.28 to 33 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
_____________ Page 3 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
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:
''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
Page 4 of 8
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
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.
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
Page 5 of 8
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
copy of the page nos.28 to 33 of the booklet 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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.49 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 , passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Anantharam son of Natarajan, aged 42 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.] 11.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav
_____________ Page 6 of 8_
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
To
Page 7 of 8
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J.
aav
H.C.P.(MD)No.869 of 2025
11.02.2026
_____________ Page 8 of 8_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to supply a legible copy of specific pages of the detention booklet to the detenu vitiates the detention order under Article 22(5)?
Whether the non-supply of material required for an effective representation against the preventive detention order renders the detention illegal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil NaduApplied¶32
(1999) 2 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Muthulakshmi
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
R. POORNIMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
