HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR HCP No. 429 of 2026 Malathi W/o.Late.Ganesh, ..Petitioner(s) Mother of the detenu Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore City. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Habeas Corpus to call for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 records relating to the Detention Order vide C.No.212/G/IS/2025 dated 23.12.2025, passed by the Second Respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioners son namely G.Manickam, son of Ganesh, aged 27 years (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore), before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): S.N.Arun Kumar P.Narayana Prasadh For Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor Counter Affidavit Filed On Behalf Of The Second Respondent ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu G.Manickam, S/o. Ganesh, male, aged 27 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.12.2025 in C.No.212/G/IS/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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 detenu are illegible, which prevented the detenu from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. 4.The said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been disputed by learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 5.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that Pages 112 and 113 in Volume I of the booklet are 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 23.12.2005. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.12.2005 in C.No.212/G/IS/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu G.Manickam, son of Ganesh, male, aged 27 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore City. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9 6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 429 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 429 of 2026 19-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis