Allowed

Eswari v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Jan 2026HCP(MD)/961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother challenged her son's preventive detention as a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found the illegible List of Property deprived the detenu of an effective representation, quashed the detention order and directed his release.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.20/2025 set aside; detenu Karuppasami directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Eswari Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :08.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶8

Eswari

¶9

... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni, Theni District.

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of detention made in Detention Order No.20/25 dated 24.05.2025 on the file of the District Collector and Magistrate,

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶18

Theni, Theni District, the second respondent herein, branding the detenu by name Karuppasami, S/o.Selvakumar, aged about 20 years, as 'Drug Offender' who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District and quash the impugned order of detention and set the detenu at liberty by producing the detenu before this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Senguttuarsan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. )

¶23

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Karuppasami @ Kudumpi, Son of Selvakumar, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order no.20/2025, dated 24.05.2025, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶24

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶26

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

¶27

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶28

respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the ground that the detenu was served with illegible copy of the List of Property, which is annexed in Page Nos.92 & 93 of Volume-I of the booklet. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned to reconsider the detention order.

¶30

4. 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:

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶34

''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.

¶35

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 in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of

¶36

Page 4 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶39

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.

¶40

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.''

¶41

5. 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 list of property has impaired her 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

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶45

safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We,

¶46

therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

¶47

In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order passed in Detention Order No.20 of 2025, dated 24.05.2025, by the 2^nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Karuppasami, S/o.Selvakumar, aged about 20 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 08.01.2026

¶49

am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶50

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶51

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

¶52

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni, Theni District.

¶56

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶57

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

¶58

Page 7 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶61

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J.

¶62

¶63

H.C.P.(MD)No.961 of 2025

¶64

08.01.2026

¶65

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

¶66

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

Eswari v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eswari 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

Murugan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Arjunan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

T.Suguna Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Paneerselvam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Theivanai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.S.Sam Dhas Vs P.S.Philomina Angelin