HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.661 of 2026 G.Kumari ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 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 passed in No. 16/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 31-01-2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 husband i.e., Ganesan, aged about 54 years, S/o. Ponnaiah, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Ganesan son of Ponnaiah, aged about 54 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.16/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 31-01-2026, 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 Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document at Page No.133 of the Booklet(Volume-II) relied on by the Detaining Authority is illegible. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the impugned detention order suffers from infirmity due to illegible copy of the document at Page No.133 of the Booklet(Volume-II) served on the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the said defect would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated. 5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 making a 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: ''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention. ... 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 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 Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand, as we find that illegible copy of the document at Page No.133 of the Booklet(Volume-II) served on the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order. Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.16/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 31-01-2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Ganesan son of Ponnaiah, aged about 54 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 03.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To: 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 Tirunelveli District. 4. The Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. bala ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.661 of 2026 DATED : 03.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis