Tmt.Davamani v. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Davamani W/o.Citibabu, Residing at No.12, Stringer Street, Broadway, Chennai G.P.O., Chennai - 600001.

Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

2.The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600054.

3.The Inspector Of Police C1, Flower Bazaar, Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.

Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 21.06.2025 in No.394/BDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son Sanjay S/o.Citibabu, aged about 21 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.Ashok Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(made by N.Sathish Kumar, J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Sanjay S/o.Citibabu, aged about 21 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.06.2025 bearing reference Memo No.394/BCDFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "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 focused his argument on the ground that some of the pages in the booklet supplied to the detenu were illegible, particularly the complaint copy at page no.12 in Volume-II of the booklet, is illegible, which prevented the detenu 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

the page no.12 in Volume-II of the booklet, is illegible. As such, we find that the furnishing of the illegible copies would prejudice the detenu in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 21.06.2025.

6.

The 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 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. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.06.2025 in Memo No.394/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu Sanjay S/o.Citibabu, aged about 21 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.) 28-10-2025 nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

2.The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600054.

3.The Inspector Of Police C1, Flower Bazaar, Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

nsd

28.10.2025