Madras High Court
HCP/1167/2026 of Jothika Vs Additional Chief Secretary to the Government on 29 September 2026
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011423142026}
Jothika
D/o Sittu Sekar,
No.10, Canal Street,
Triplicane, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector Of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
St.Thomas Mount Unit, Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
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 BBCDEFGISSSV No.251/2026 dated 08.06.2026 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu Sittu Sekar @ Sekar, son of Doss, aged about 60 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the daughter of the detenu Sittu Sekar @ Sekar, son of Doss, aged about 60 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.06.2026 bearing reference Memo BBCDEFGISSSV No.251/2026 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the arrest memo at Page No.35
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
in Volume-I of the booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the daughter-in-law of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the daughter-in-law of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the daughter-in-law of the detenu through SMS.
5. However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.
6. As evidenced from the document in Page No.35 in Volume-I of the booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the daughter-in-law of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.06.2026 in Memo BBCDEFGISSSV No.251/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz. Sittu Sekar @ Sekar, son of Doss, aged about 60 years, 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.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
To
1. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai. Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector Of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St.Thomas Mount Unit, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
HCP No. 1167 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. nsd HCP No. 1167 of 2026 29-09-2026