Surya vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011005482026}
Surya
W/o.Babu @ Mittai Babu,
No.26/78, Nayaikkar Street,
Orukattanmalai Road,
Varaganeri,
Trichy City. ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by,The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of prison
Central Prison,
Cuddalore. ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: H2-DO.To call for the records pertaining to the impugned
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in
C.No.32/Detention/CPO/TC/2026 dated 04.07.2026 in detaining the
detenu under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Preventive Detention Act
1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
to produce the detenue namely Babu @ Mittai Babu,S/o. Mohammed
Hussain, Male aged about 32 years who is detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): M/s K. M.Karunakaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.Nirmal Kumar J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Babu @ Mittai
Babu,S/o. Mohammed Hussain, aged about 32 years. The detenu has
been detained by the second respondent pursuant to the detention order
passed in C.No.32/Detention/CPO/TC/2026 dated 04.07.2026, branding
him as a “Drug Offender”, as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order of detention is under
challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2 . Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an
unexplained delay in serving the booklet. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the detention order was passed on
04.07.2026, the grounds of detention was served on the detenue only on
11.07.2026, which is in violation of mandatory provision under Section
8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused
the materials available on record.
4. We remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a
punishment as held by Honourable Supreme Court in the oft quoted
Ashok Kumar's case i.e., Ashok Kumar V. Delhi Administration and
Ors. reported in (1982) 2 SCC 403 .
5. As regards the point urged by the petitioner that grounds on
which the detention order has been made has not been communicated to
the detenu, the same turns on section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982. A careful
reading of Section 8(1) leads to the inevitable conclusion that it is a facet
of the Constitutional guarantee qua Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India. Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 reads as follows:
'8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by
the order.-(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention
order, the Authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not
later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the
grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the
State Government.
6. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that there has been delay. In this view of the matter, it is
imperative to look on what have referred to as booklet supra. A scanned
reproduction of the booklet is as follows:
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
7 . It is clear that grounds of detention qua the impugned detention
order has been communicated to the detenu only on 11.07.2026 though
the detention order was made on 04.07.2026 on which day the detenu was
already under detention i.e., State custody. It is a clear violation of
Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 i.e., the Act under which preventive
detention order has been clamped on the detenu. As already alluded to
supra, Section 8(1) being a facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India, Section 8(1) is statutorily imperative for ensuring the constitutional
guarantee of giving an earliest opportunity to the detenu to make a
representation to the State. It is also to be noted that this is ingrained in
the second part of Section 8 which has been extracted and reproduced
supra.
8. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Bench on
19.01.2022 in the case of M.Shylaja Vs.The Additional Chief Secretary
to Government and others reported in 2023/MHC/193 . This case was
decided by us inter alia by drawing inspiration from Malleeswari case
[Malleeswari Vs. State Government, rep. By the Secretary to
Government and another reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 513 ]. Relevant
paragraphs in M.Shylaja case are paragraphs 9 to 12 and the same read as
follows:
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
'9. In this regard, we draw inspiration from ratio in
Malleeswari Vs. State Government, rep. By the Secretary to
Government and another reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 513,
wherein a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that
delay in supplying copy of detention order, grounds and
connected papers to the detenu i.e., delay beyond 5 days from
the date of detention is clearly violation of Section 8(1) of Act
14 and that by itself becomes a ground to make an order
setting aside the detention. To be noted, in Malleeswari case
also, the detention was under Act 14 albeit as a 'Goonda' and
detenu was in prison.
10. We notice one other feature and that is in all the
detention orders, the provision of law has been mentioned as
Section 2(ggg), whereas it is Section 2(1)(ggg) of Act 14 of
1982 as detention is posited on 'sexual offenders' but leave this
issue open in this order as it is not clear if it is a misprint in
this book titled 'A Handbook of Preventive Laws' [October
2021, Third edition] by S.Sambandham / V.S.Rajaram and
published by C.Sitaraman & Co. Pvt. Ltd., as Gazette
publication of ordinance [Ordinance 1 of 1982 published in
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 05.01.1982] does not have
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
sub-section (1).
11. With regard to custodial jurisprudence, in
Pattammal Vs. District Magistrate and Collector Nagai and
Others reported in 1995(1) CTC 335, which is also under Act
14 of 1982, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dealing
with detention under Act 14 has held that Section 8 of Act 14 of
1982 is intented to confer a right for detenu qua an opportunity
to make a representation against an order of detention.
12.We have noticed that the language in which Section 8
of Act 14 of 1982 is couched makes it clear that 'not later than
five days' is from the date of detention. In the cases on hand,
the detenues were already under detention. This is one facet of
the matter. Another facet of the matter is, on detention orders
being made, preventive detention of the detenus operates and
in the cases on hand, the grounds of detention have been
served beyond five days from the date of detention orders. A
scanned reproduction of undisputed seal of the prison
authorities in one of the cases [HCP No.1182 of 2022] as an
illustration is as follows:
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
To be noted, Malleeswari case was rendered by another
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, we drew inspiration from
the same while writing M.Shylaja's case and we are informed
that Malleeswari case is holding the field.
This by itself decides i.e., dispositive reasoning qua the point raised by
the petitioner in favour of the HCP petitioner.
10. Apropos the sequitur of the discussion and dispositive
reasoning set out supra is that the captioned HCP is allowed, the
impugned detention order bearing reference
C.No.32/Detention/CPO/TC/2026 dated 04.07.2026 made by the second
respondent is set aside and the detenu Babu @ Mittai Babu,
S/o. Mohammed Hussain, Male aged about 32 years is directed to be set
at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
(M.N.K.,J.) (T.M.C.,J.)
12-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AAV
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Superintendent of prison
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
aav
HCP(MD) No. 955 of 2026
12-10-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )