Devi v. The Secretary to the Government,

ORDER (made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother detenu Hemanath @ Hemathkumar, aged 26 years, S/o.Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2026 in Rc.No.C2/01/2026 branding him as "Goonda" 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]. Page3 of 7

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶3Though 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 the Page No.119 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.

¶4The said submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶5A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that Page No.119 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.

¶6The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Manipur Vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan reported in (2022) 19 SCC 509, has held that supply of the Page4 of 7 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. Page5 of 7 In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2026 in Rc.No.C2/01/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu Hemanath @ Hemathkumar, aged 26 years, S/o.Murugan, 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 nsd Page6 of 7 To

¶1The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶2District Collector and District Magistrate of Villuppuram district, Villupuram.

¶3The Superintendent of Police, Viluppuram District, Villuppuram.

¶4The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶5The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. HCPoNo.o519oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMARoJ. AND K.RAJASEKARoJ. nsd HCPoNo.o519oofo2026 19-08-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 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 Devi W/o.Murugan, No.21, 2nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Lawspet, Puducherry. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Villuppuram district, Villupuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Viluppuram District, Villuppuram. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 5. The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District. ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 7 Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2026 in Rc.No.C2/01/2026 against the petitioner's son Hemanath @ Hemathkumar, aged 26 years, S/o.Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.Side)