Allowed

Muthu v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Dec 2024HCP/2927/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition filed to quash a preventive detention order. The High Court set aside the detention order due to inordinate and unexplained delay between the arrest and the passing of the order, holding that it snapped the link between grounds and purpose, and directed the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

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

Muthu Vs the Additional Chief Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2927 of 2024

Muthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri - 636 705.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri - 636 701.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem - 600 008.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri B1 Police Station, Dharmapuri - 636 701. ... Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings in S.C.No.29/2024/C-1 dated 18.09.2024, set aside the same as unsustainable in law and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu namely, Rajkumar S/o. Muthu, aged 25 years (TPDA No.6931) now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the

¶25

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶29

Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶30

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

¶31

In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 28.07.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 18.09.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶32

In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' ,

¶33

reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' , when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-

¶34

“ 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

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶38

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. ”

¶39

Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332' , had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

reported in

¶43

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶44

In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' ,

¶45

reported in ' (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428' , this Court had 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. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.

¶46

Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, in proceedings S.C.No.29/2024/C1 dated 18.09.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed . The detenu viz., Rajkumar, aged 25 years, S/o. Muthu confined at Central Prison, Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 21.12.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶48

Page 5 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

HCP.No.2927 of 2024

¶51

¶52