Madras High Court
Maithili vs The State Rep By on 13 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.661 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.661 of 2025
MAITHILI ... Petitioner/ wife of the detenue
Vs.
1. The State Rep By, The Additional
Chief Secretary To The Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Government of Tamil
Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600
009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector,
Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of
Police, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Superintendent,
Office of the Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
HCP.No.661 of 2025
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Vaitheeswaran Koil Police Station,
Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd
respondent in connection with order made in C.O.C.No.04/2025, dated
05.02.2025, passed against petitioner's husband Vignesh, aged 25 years,
S/o.Ramadoss, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dilli Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public proseuctor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Vignesh, aged 25 years, S/o.Ramadoss, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm ) HCP.No.661 of 2025 the second respondent dated 05.02.2025 issued against her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as a copy of the remand extension order has not been furnished to the detenue. It is therefore stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make effective representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the detenue has not been furnished with a copy of the remand extension order. This non-
Page 3 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm ) HCP.No.661 of 2025 furnishing of the copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm ) HCP.No.661 of 2025 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 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 non-supply 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. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm ) HCP.No.661 of 2025 in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 05.02.2025 in C.O.C.No.04/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vignesh, aged 25 years, S/o.Ramadoss, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J]
13.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
The Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Government of Tamil
Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600
009.
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
HCP.No.661 of 2025
2.The District Collector And District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Superintendent, Office of the Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector Of Police, Vaitheeswaran Koil Police Station, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai.
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 7 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm ) HCP.No.661 of 2025 M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu H.C.P.No.661 of 2025 13.06.2025 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )