Sumathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.896 of 2025 Sumathi ... Petitioner vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in S.R.No. 19/GOONDA/2025 dated 01.04.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Bavin son of Muniyasamy aged about 20 years, now detained as Goonda at Madurai Central Prison Page No.1 of 6
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani 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 mother of the detenu viz., Bavin son of Muniyasamy aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in S.R.No.19/GOONDA/2025 dated 01.04.2025, 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.
3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the detenu was served with Observation Mahazar annexed Page No.2 of 6
in page 8 of Volume-I of the booklet which is not legible. Therefore, the detenu was not able to submit effective representation to reconsider the order of detention. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singla vs. Union of India reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 293. 4.
On perusal of the counter affidavit and also the submissions made, it is seen that the detenu is having two adverse case and one ground case. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observation mahazar served to the detenu at page 8 of Volume-I of the booklet, is illegible and not readable. Therefore, the detenu was not able to make effective representation to re-consider the order of detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singla's case (supra) held that in cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant Page No.3 of 6
statutory provisions allowing for submitting a representation are vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an unknown threat. 5.
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Since the detenu in this case was not served with legible copy of Observation Mahazar, his right to make effective representation to reconsider the order of detention passed against him, is deprived. On this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.R.No.19/GOONDA/2025 dated 01.04.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Bavin son of Muniyasamy aged about 20 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.] 15.12.2025 Index : Yes / No bala Page No.4 of 6
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
Page No.5 of 6
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 15.12.2025 Page No.6 of 6