HCP No. 435 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. 435 of 2026 Vasudevan S/o.Selvaraj, No.22/17, Kakkan Street, Maniyakaranpalayam, Coimbatore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600009. 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 E-3, Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore City. ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 435 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the Detention Order vide C.No.11/G/IS/2026 dated 07.02.2026, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s son viz. V.Hari Prasath, son of Vasudevan, aged 21 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER (made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu V.Hari Prasath, son of Vasudevan, aged 21 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.02.2026 in C.No.11/G/IS/2026 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]. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 435 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 focused his argument on the ground that the document relied on by the detaining authority at Page No.95 in Volume-I of the booklet 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. 4. The said submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been disputed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 5. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that the document relied on by the detaining authority at Page No.95 in Volume-I of the booklet 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 435 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 6. The 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 the said judgment 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 435 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.02.2026 in C.No.11/G/IS/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu V.Hari Prasath, son of Vasudevan, aged 21 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 nsd To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600009. 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 E-3, Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore City. 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 435 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. nsd HCP No. 435 of 2026 19-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis