Madras High Court
HCP/1474/2026 of Christilla Vs The State Rep. by, The Secretary to Government on 29 September 2026
HCP No. 1474 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. 1474 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011880232026}
Christilla
W/o. Samson Albert,
Mariyamman Koil Street,
Singanallur, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Secretary to Government
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Coimbatore City.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police
Saravanapatty Police Station,
..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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2025 in
C.No.197/G/IS/2025 against the petitioner’s son Alan Sam, male, aged 21
years, S/o.Samson Albert, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and
HCP No. 1474 of 2026
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
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 mother of the detenu Alan Sam, male, aged 21 years, S/o.Samson Albert, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2025 bearing reference C.No.197/G/IS/2025 slapped on her son, 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds have been 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 to the detenu. According to the learned
HCP No. 1474 of 2026
counsel for the petitioner, the detention order was passed on 26.11.2025 and the booklet was served to the detenu only on 03.12.2025, which is in violation of the mandatory provision under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
4. In the instant case, though the detenu was detained on 26.11.2025 through the detention order, the booklet was served to the detenu only on 03.12.2025. Under Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Detaining Authority is mandated to communicate the grounds of detention or booklet within a period of five (5) days. The computation of the period of five days was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vasanthi vs. The Secretary to Government and others, passed in H.C.P.Nos.1407 and 1410 of 2023 decided on 29.08.2023, wherein, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 972, and held as follows: “9.3 ............................ ...............It was a reference before the Hon'ble Larger Bench, however, as that is also a matter of curtailment of liberty (as in the case on hand), we draw inspiration from Kapil Wadhawan principle and hold that while computing five days within the meaning of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, the date on which the preventive detention order is served on the detenu i.e., formal arrest pursuant to the preventive detention order should also be included.”
HCP No. 1474 of 2026
5. Thus, when the order of detention is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing five days period, the Detaining Authority has served it on the eighth day, which is opposite to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vasanthi's case (supra). The reason for the said delay has not been properly explained by the Detaining Authority.
6. In view of the violation of the mandatory provision under Section 8
(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the order of detention cannot be legally sustained. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.11.2025 in C.No.197/G/IS/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Alan Sam, male, aged 21 years, S/o.Samson Albert, 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. 1474 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City.
3. The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police Saravanapatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.
5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
HCP No. 1474 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. nsd HCP No. 1474 of 2026 29-09-2026