HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.491 of 2026 Thalapathy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai 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 of the respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No.4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026 and Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years, now confining at Madurai Central Prison, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani 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 detenu viz., Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No.4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026, 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.491 of 2026 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet is partially in English and partially in Tamil and despite the detenu having sought for translation of the English portion, it was not furnished to him and thereby, he is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet is partially in English and partially in Tamil and despite the detenu having sought for translation of the English portion, it was not furnished to him. Therefore, we are of the view that it 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 Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of 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 Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 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 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 the translation of the English Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 portion of the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet was not furnished to the detenu which 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. 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No. 4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 10.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala Page No.6 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 To: 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai 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.491 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. bala ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 DATED : 10.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.491 of 2026 Thalapathy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai 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 of the respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No.4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026 and Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years, now confining at Madurai Central Prison, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani 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 detenu viz., Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No.4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026, 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.491 of 2026 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet is partially in English and partially in Tamil and despite the detenu having sought for translation of the English portion, it was not furnished to him and thereby, he is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet is partially in English and partially in Tamil and despite the detenu having sought for translation of the English portion, it was not furnished to him. Therefore, we are of the view that it 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 Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of 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 Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 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 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 the translation of the English Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 portion of the document annexed at page No.23 of the Booklet was not furnished to the detenu which 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. 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.16/2026 (R.O.C.No. 4247493/2026/C2) dated 11.02.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Thalapathy, son of Balamurugan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 10.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala Page No.6 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 To: 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai 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.491 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. bala ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.491 of 2026 DATED : 10.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis