HCP No. 401 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. 401 of 2026 Kalpana W/o.Martin, ..Petitioner(s) Mother of the detenu Vs 1. The 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, City Police Officer, Huzur Road, Coimbaore City, Coimbatore-18. 3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Coimbatore City. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 401 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order of Detention made in Detention Order C.No.201/G/IS/2025 dated 04.12.2025 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Huzur Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore, the 2nd Respondent herein, branding the detenu by name M.LEADER MATHEUS, S/o.Martin, aged about 34 years, as ECONOMIC OFFENDER who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore and quash the same and set him at liberty by producing him before this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sharma For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu M.Leader Matheus, S/o.Martin, male, aged about 34 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.12.2025 in C.No.201/G/IS/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Economic 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. 401 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 made his submission on the ground that the remand extension order was not provided in the booklet served on the detenu in its entirety, which prevented the detenu from making an effective representation against the detention order and the non furnishing of the documents relied on would vitiate the order of detention. 4. On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that remand extension order has been enclosed at Page No.43 of the booklet, but the same is incomplete. Therefore, non supply of the material relied on by the detaining authority to the detenu would prevent him from making an effective representation and the same vitiate the impugned detention order. 5.The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India and another reported in (1990) 2 SCC 1 has held that the bail application and bail order were vital material for consideration and if those were not considered, the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired. The relevant paragraph from the said judgment reads as follows: '27. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 401 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case. ' 6.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53 has held that though it may not be necessary to furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or passing reference has been made, it is imperative that every such document which has been relied on by the detaining authority and which affects the right of the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has to be supplied to the detenu. 7.The said judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The non supply of the materials on which the subjective satisfaction was arrived at would affect the right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 401 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 8.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.201/G/IS/2025 dated 04.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely M.Leader Matheus, aged 34 years, S/o.Martin, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention 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 gpa To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, City Police Officer, Huzur Road, Coimbaore City, Coimbatore-18. 3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, 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. 401 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 401 of 2026 20-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis