Krishnapandi Alias Ilangaipandi v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Its the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Krishnapandi @ Ilangaipandi, son of Ramaraj, aged about 42 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order in C.No.09/detention /C.P.O./TC.2026 dated 11.02.2026, holding him to be a "Drug Offener", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Page No.2 of 8

¶2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that notice to appear before the Advisory Board on 11.03.2026 was served only on the next day on 12.03.2026 and thereby sufficient opportunity time was not given to the detenu to inform his relatives well in advance to avail assistance for making an effective representation before the board. Hence, the detention order is vitiated. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the order passed by this Court in H.C.P(MD)No.444 of 2014 John vs. The State rep. by the Secretary to Government and the relevant portions therein are extracted hereunder:- "43. In the detention order, when the detenu was permitted to avail the assistance of his friend or relative, if he so desirous, at the time of personal hearing before the Advisory Board, provided that his friend or relative, is no an Advocate and that the detenu has to make his own arrangement to get his friend or relative to be Page No.3 of 8 present, at the time of personal hearing before the Advisory Board, it is desirable also to state that his case would be considered within three weeks from the date of detention, so that he can make his own arrangements within such time.

¶44Instead of finding fault with the detenu, who had not represented before the Advisory Board that he was not given adequate time, considering the right conferred on him, we are of the humble view, it is for the competent authorities, to give sufficient time, between the date of intimation and the date scheduled for the meeting of the Advisory Board, so as to enable him to either discuss the matter with anyone through the Superintendent of Prisons. The detenu has to inform his friend or relative, the nature of accusation made against him, discuss with him, for which, adequate time has to be given. Opportunity given should be real and now ritualistic. It should be effective and not illusory. A mere ritual would be an empty formality and not an opportunity. It would be a pretence or make belief. Opportunity given also includes reasonable notice of hearing, to avail the assistance of a friend or relative. .......

¶46Reverting back to the case on hand, though the Advisory Board had fixed the personal hearing on

12.05.2014 at 12.00 Noon, the detenu had been intimated Page No.4 of 8 only on 09.05.2014 at 13.50 hours, by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Madurai. As

09.05.2014 was a Friday and the ensuing days, 10.05.2014 and 11.05.2014 were Saturday and Sunday, we are of the view that the detenu was not given sufficient time to contract any of his friends or relatives to assist him, to put forth his case, before the Advisory Board."

¶4Learned Counsel for State of Tamilnadu appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though notice to appear before the Advisory Board on 11.03.2026 was served only on the next day on

12.03.2026, on that score alone, the impugned order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Counsel for State of Tamilnadu, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶5In this case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, intimation regarding the meeting of the advisory board on

11.03.2026 had been served on the detenu only on 12.03.2026 and Page No.5 of 8 thereby he was not able to inform the same to his relatives or friends so as to avail their assistance. We find that the time given is not adequate and sufficient, thereby, the detention order stands vitiated. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

¶6In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.09/detention/C.P.O./TC.2026 dated

11.02.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Krishnapandi @ Ilangaipandi, son of Ramaraj, aged about 42 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.]

17.07.2026 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No rm Page No.6 of 8 To

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

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Office of The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.7 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND

R.POORNIMA, J. rm DATED : 17.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.494 of 2026 Krishnapandi @ Ilangaipandi ... Petitioner/ detenu Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. ... 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 C.No. Page No.1 of 8 09/detention /C.P.O./TC.2026 dated 11.02.2026 and Quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Krishnapandi @ Ilangaipandi, son of Ramaraj, aged about 42 years, now detained as "Drug Offender" at Trichy Central Prison before this 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)