Singaraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Singaraj ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order passed in H.S(M)Confdl.No.60/2025, dated 30.06.2025, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son namely Vignesh, S/o.Singaraj, aged about 25 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this court and him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Prabu 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 father of the detenu viz., Vignesh, son of Singaraj, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S(M)Confdl.No.60 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025, 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 for the petitioner raised a ground that the detenu was provided with illegible copy of the documents, which were annexed in the booklet, therefore, the detenu could not able to make out a effective representation. On perusal of the those documents, which were not relied upon by the detaining authority to detain the detenue under Act, 14 of 1982.
4. Further, on perusal of the representation submitted by the detenu also did not even whisper about the same. Therefore, even assuming that there are some of the pages are illegible, it is not caused any prejudice to the detenu to make a effective representation. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the detaining authority.
5. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 29.01.2026 am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am 29.01.2026