Allowed

Gowsalya v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Madras HC3 Jun 2024HCP/440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court bench quashed a detention order under the TN Dangerous Activities Act against a detenu due to an inordinate delay of 42 days between his arrest and the passing of the order. The court held that unexplained delay snaps the link between detention grounds and purpose, allowing a Habeas Corpus petition and directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 28.06.2023 set aside; Habeas Corpus petition allowed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Gowsalya Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.440 of 2024

¶7

Gowsalya

¶8

... Petitioner/wife of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government [Home], Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore.

¶14

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District.

¶16

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records of the second respondent, in his proceeding Cr.M.P.No.24/S.O/2023, dated 28.06.2023 to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, detenue (Vadivel, S/o.Anandharaj, aged 36 years), before this Court, now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶21

ORDER

¶22

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶23

The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu viz., Vadivel, S/o.Anandharaj, aged 36 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore,

¶24

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶26

has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.06.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Sexual 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].

¶27

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶28

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶29

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

¶31

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 17.05.2023 and

¶32

thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 28.06.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶33

Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶35

5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' ,

¶36

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:-

¶37

“ 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

¶38

Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶40

and circumstances of each case. ”

¶41

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 .

¶42

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.

¶43

Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

HCP.No.440 of 2024

¶45

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent

¶46

on 28.06.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.24/S.O/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vadivel, S/o.Anandharaj, aged 36 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 03.06.2024

¶48

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶49

Anu

¶50

¶51

1.The Secretary to Government [Home], Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶52

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶53