Non-supply of legible copies of documents relied upon in a preventive detention order violates the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering the detention illegal.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the order of the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 58 of 2025 dated 15.07.2025 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue by name Karthick Prabakaran, son of Murugaiah, aged about 35years now confining as Goonda at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this court and set him at liberty forthwith.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Karthick Prabakaran, son of Murugaiah, aged about 35years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.58 of 2025 dated 15.07.2025 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.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was not served with legible copy of page nos.149,151,153 and 175 of the booklet, therefore the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation to reconsider the order of detention.

On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the submission made the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, it is revealed that the detenu was not served with legible copy of the page nos. 149,151,153 and 175 of the booklet, therefore, the detenu could not able to make an effective representation to reconsider the order of detention. Hence, on this sole ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

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 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 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 nonsupply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her