The High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act due to an unexplained delay of over a month between the detenu's arrest and the passing of the detention order, finding that the link between grounds and purpose was snapped.
Detention order set aside; 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.378 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.378 of 2024
Ponnammal
... Petitioner/mother of the detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-590 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
... Respondents
Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:
HCP.No.378 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order issued by the second respondent herein in No.59/BCDFGISSSV No.59/2023 dated 21.12.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue namely C.Sri Rangarajan @ Thangaraj, aged about 24 years, the son of the petitioner herein and set him at liberty from the third respondent prison viz., the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66, forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mageshkumar 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 is the mother of the detenu viz., C.Sri Rangarajan @ Thangaraj, aged about 24 years, detained the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.12.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.378 of 2024
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 14.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.12.2023. 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 Hon'ble
Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.378 of 2024
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
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
Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.378 of 2024
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 21.12.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.59/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., C.Sri Rangarajan @ Thangaraj, aged about 24 years, detained the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.378 of 2024
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 12.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-590 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.378 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
H.C.P.No.378 of 2024
12.06.2024
Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay between arrest and detention order snaps the 'live and proximate link' rendering the order invalid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of TripuraRelied on¶30
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and OthersRelied on¶36
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332 · Who else cites this
Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶41
(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ponnammal
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai
The Superintendent of Prison, Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66
The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Chengalpattu District
M.S. RAMESH
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
