Vasanthi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.1487 of 2025 Vasanthi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur
3. The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur Disttrict
4. The Superintendent of Police Central Prison-Salem Salem District 1/7
5. State rep. By its The Inspector of Police Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station Tiruppur District .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records, relating to the petitioners son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 16.06.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Crl.M.P.Mo.43/Goonda/2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Manoj @ Manojkumar, S/o. Annadurai, aged 24 years before this Honble High Court and set the petitioner son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Salem. For Petitioner :
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Manoj @ Manojkumar, S/o. Annadurai, male, aged 24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.06.2025 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.43/GOONDA/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as 2/7
"Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3.Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the some of the pages in the booklet supplied to the detenue are illegible, which prevented the detenue from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.The said submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that some of the pages in the booklet are illegible. As such, we find that the furnishing of the illegible copies would prejudice the detenu in making an 3/7
effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 16.06.2025.
6.Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Manipur Vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan reported in (2022) 19 SCC 509 has held that supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority has deprived the detenu in making an effective representation. Relevant paragraphs of Hon'ble Supreme Court are paragraphs 22 and 23 and the same read as follows:
'22. Thus, the legal position has been settled by this Court that the right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law.
23. It is the admitted case of the parties that Respondent 1 has failed to question before the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the order of detention, but the right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of 4/7
the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation. '
Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order on the ground that supply of illegible copies of documents relied on by the detaining authority has caused prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.
7. In the result, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.43/GOONDA/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Manoj @ Manojkumar, S/o.Annadurai, aged 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 24.10.2025 Index: Yes/No gpa 5/7
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur
3. The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur Disttrict
4. The Superintendent of Police Central Prison-Salem Salem District
5. The Inspector of Police Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station Tiruppur District
6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9 7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
6/7
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., gpa H.C.P.No.1487 of 2025 24.10.2025 7/7