Habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found the detaining authority relied on an undated Special Report and undated statements from relatives to conclude bail was imminent, showing non-application of mind, quashed the detention order and ordered the detenu set at liberty.
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.
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
Kalaiselvi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai - 66
4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order T-6, Avadi Police Station Chennai
... Respondents
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
Page 1 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2024 in Memo No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's husband Somasundaram Ganesh, Male aged 53 years, S/o.Raja, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Thiru. Somasundaram Ganesh, aged 53 years, S/o.Raja, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" 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].
Page 2 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
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 this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, as well as the entire pages of the paper booklet furnished by the Detaining Authority, are not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the documents were obtained and as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is immediately placed before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order.
Page 3 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
4. It is seen from the records that the Special Report of the Sponsoring
Authority is not dated. Further, the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu, enclosed in the Booklet, stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are also not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated and even the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective
Page 4 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from non-application of mind.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', has dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. When the subjective satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
“10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the
Page 5 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.
11. In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained. ”
6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Page 6 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 04.01.2024 in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru. Somasundaram Ganesh, aged 53 years, S/o.Raja , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 04.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation
kas
To
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai - 66
Page 7 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
Page 8 of 9
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
kas
4.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order T-6, Avadi Police Station Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
H.C.P.No.335 of 2024
04.06.2024
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, based on undated Special Report of Sponsoring Authority and undated statements from relatives about bail plans, suffers from non-applica
Whether the detention order branding the detenu as a 'Goonda' is valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and anotherRelied on¶5
'2011 [5] SCC 244' · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalaiselvi
The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat Chennai
The Commissioner of Police Avadi City
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai
The Inspector of Police, Law and Order T-6, Avadi Police Station Chennai
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
