Allowed

Mathesh v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC1 Feb 2024HCP/2476/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order. Finding that the unexplained delay between the detenu's arrest (18.07.2023) and the passing of the order (27.09.2023) snapped the live and proximate link, the court quashed the order and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; Habeas Corpus petition allowed; Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Mathesh Vs the Secretary to the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.02.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2476 of 2023

Mathesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶20

order of detention passed by the second respondent on 27.09.2023 in S.C.No.21/2023, against the petitioner's son Prakash, S/o.Mathesh, male, aged about 19 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.D. Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J. )

¶24

The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Prakash, aged 19

¶25

years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.09.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in passing the order of detention.

¶32

4. In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 18.07.2023 and the detention order was passed on 27.09.2023. In a similar case, where there was a delay in passing the detention order dated 18.06.2022 after the arrest of the detenu on 08.04.2022, this Court in HCP No.1388 of 2022 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and

¶33

Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332' , held as follows:

¶34

“ 6.... As between 08.04.2022 and 18.06.2022, it is well over two months and given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly ground and the adverse cases, we find that this live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention had in fact snapped. ”

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶38

This Court, in the said order, drew inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' , reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' , though in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not directly deal with the issue of delay in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are extracted hereunder:-

¶39

“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶43

5. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' , reported in ' (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428' , this Court held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the unexplained delay in passing the order of detention after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶44

6. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 27.09.2023 in S.C.No.21/2023 , is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prakash, aged 19 years, S/o.Mathesh, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶45

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 01.02.2024

¶46

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

Page 5 of 7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶50

Sni

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

HCP.No.2476 of 2023

¶54

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶55

Sni

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

2.District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶60

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶61

5.The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶62

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶63

H.C.P.No.2476 of 2023

¶64

01.02.2024

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

Page 7 of 7

Mathesh v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathesh v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Yusuf Vs Union of India Rep by

Mrs.Velal Vs the State Rep by

A.Jayanthi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramalingam @ Ramayan Vs State

Amaravati Vs Superintendent

S.Lalkhan Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police