Wife challenged a Goondas Act preventive detention order, arguing inordinate delay between arrest (21.10.2023) and detention order (25.12.2023). Relying on precedent that unexplained delay snaps the live and proximate link justifying detention, the Court quashed the order and ordered the detenu's release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HCP.No.297 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.297 of 2024
P.S.Swathy
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3.The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
HCP.No.297 of 2024
PRAYER:
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention order made in S.C.No.27/2023 dated 25.12.2023 passed by the Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set the detenue Thiru.Shynu, S/o.Sasi, aged 36 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Shynu, aged
about 36 years, S/o.Sasi, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.12.2023
slapped on her husband, branding him as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
Page 2 of 8
HCP.No.297 of 2024
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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 21.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 25.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' ,
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
Page 3 of 8
HCP.No.297 of 2024
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:-
“ 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. ”
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar
Page 4 of 8
HCP.No.297 of 2024
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 .
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' ,
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.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.12.2023 in S.C.No.27/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Shynu, aged about 36
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.297 of 2024
years, S/o.Sasi, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
15.07.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Tsg
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3.The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem,
Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.297 of 2024
Salem District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.297 of 2024
Tsg
H.C.P.No.297 of 2024
15.07.2024
Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inordinate unexplained delay between the detenu's arrest on 21.10.2023 and the detention order dated 25.12.2023 snapped the live link and vitiated the detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of TripuraApplied¶5
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and OthersRelied on¶6
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332 · Who else cites this
Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶7
(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.S. Swathy
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District
The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District
The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
