Writ petition filed by a mother challenging detention of her son under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Court held that inordinate delay between arrest and detention order severed the required link, quashing the order and releasing the detenu.
Detention order set aside; habeas corpus petition allowed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
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.299 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.299 of 2024
Chitra
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely Raji @ Kulla Raji, aged about 32 years, S/o.Mohan, who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and pass order to call for the records of detention order dated passed
Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.299 of 2024
by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2024 dated 08.01.2024 against the petitioner's son Raji @ Kulla Raji, S/o.Mohan and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue Raji @ Kulla Raji, aged about 32 years, S/o.Mohan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.01.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.299 of 2024
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 18.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 08.01.2024. 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 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
Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.299 of 2024
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
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
Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.299 of 2024
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 08.01.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.19/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Raji @ Kulla Raji, aged about 32 years, S/o.Mohan, 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] 11.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.299 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
To
H.C.P.No.299 of 2024
11.06.2024
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order is valid in light of an inordinate delay between arrest and the passing of the order.
Whether unexplained delay severs the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention.
Whether the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act must be quashed due to delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of TripuraRelied on¶29
'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813'
Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and OthersRelied on¶35
'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332' · Who else cites this
Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶37
'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428'
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chitra
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal
The Inspector of Police, (Law & Order) R2 Kodambakkam Police Station
M.S. RAMESH
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
