Surabi Mala v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Jeevendran, S/o.Kannadasan, male, aged 24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated

09.12.2025 bearing reference No.1028/BBCDEFGISSSV/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].

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. Page3 of 6

¶3Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the hearing submitted that the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for material irregularities, as the copy of the Government order pertaining to Delegation of Powers was not given to the detenu, which prevented him from making an effective representation and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶4On a perusal of Booklet served on the detenu, it is seen that copy of the Government Order is not enclosed in the booklet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non-furnishing of copy of the vital document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation. Therefore, on this ground alone, the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

¶5In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making 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. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as Page4 of 6 follows: "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 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."

¶6In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed. Page5 of 6

7.In the result, the detention order passed by second respondent dated

09.12.2025 bearing reference No.1028/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeevendran, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Kannadasan, 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 gpa To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

¶5The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o362oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. gpa HCPoNo.o362oofo2026 19-08-2026 Page6oofo6

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 Surabi Mala W/o.Kannadasan, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Puzhal. 4. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Anna Nagar, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to call for the entire records from the 2nd respondent in connection with Memo No.1028/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 09.12.2025 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son namely Jeevendran S/o Kannadasan, aged 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of Page2 of 6 1982 before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Nadhiya For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)