Habeas corpus petition by father of a detenu held under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act challenging detention on grounds of inordinate delay in passing the detention order after arrest. The Court found the unexplained delay snapped the live and proximate link and set aside the detention order, directing 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.389 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.389 of 2024
Durairaj
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal – 637 001.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal – 637 003.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem – 636 008. 5.The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District – 638 182. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
Page 1 of 8
HCP.No.389 of 2024
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.01/Goonda/2024(M1) dated 28.01.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenu namely Janarathanan alias Boopathi S/o.Durairaj aged 32 years detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajprabhu For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Janarthanan alias Boopathi, aged about 32 years, S/o.Durairaj, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.01.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Page 2 of 8
HCP.No.389 of 2024
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 25.12.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 28.01.2024. 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
Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.389 of 2024
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 8
HCP.No.389 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 28.01.2024 in C.M.P.No.01/GOONDA/2024/(M1), is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Janarthanan alias Boopathi, aged about 32 years, S/o.Durairaj, is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.389 of 2024
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 25.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Tsg
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal – 637 001.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal – 637 003.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem – 636 008.
5.The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District – 638 182.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Page 6 of 8
HCP.No.389 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.389 of 2024
H.C.P.No.389 of 2024
25.06.2024
Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay between the detenu's arrest on 25.12.2023 and the detention order dated 28.01.2024 snapped the live link, rendering the Goondas Act detention invalid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of TripuraRelied on¶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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Durairaj
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal
The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem
The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
