HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR HCP No. 632 of 2026 Paulraj S/o. Ammasi, H.No.1/210, ARS Nilayam, Nadu Street, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Salem District, Salem. 3. The Superintendent of Police Salem District, Salem. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Inspector of Police Deevatipatti Police Station, Salem District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P. No.04/GOONDA/C2/2026 dated 18-2-2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent and QUASH the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 the petitioners on Thiru. Chinnakutty @ Janaamsapriyan aged about 29 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Honourable Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr. J. Elanjchezhien For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Governemnt Advocate (Crl. Side) ******* ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.04/GOONDA/C2/2026 dated 18.02.2026 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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 focussed his argument on the ground that page No.96 in Volume II supplied to the detenu 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 4. The said submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been disputed by learned Government Advocate. 5. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that page No.96 in Volume II supplied to the detenu 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 18.02.2026. 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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. ' 7. 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. 8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.04/GOONDA/C2/2026 dated 18.02.2026 is hereby set aside. The detenu Chinnakutty @ Janaamsapriyan, S/o. Paulraj, Male, aged 29 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.) 20-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No stn Note to Office : Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison,Salem, forthwith. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Salem District, Salem. 3. The Superintendent of Police Salem District, Salem. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Inspector of Police Deevatipatti Police Station, Salem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 632 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. stn HCP No. 632 of 2026 20-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis