Mother challenged preventive detention order branding her son a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found an unexplained inordinate delay between arrest (24.09.2023) and the detention order (25.10.2023), snapping the live link, quashed the detention order and directed 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.731 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.731 of 2024
Shanthi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home Department, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.
Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
5.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Arakkonam.
... Respondents
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 detenue's detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo B3/D.O.No.48/2023, dated 25.10.2023 and set aside the same and produce the detenue, Nagaraj, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 22 years, now detained at Central Prison, Salem, and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : No Appearance 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., Nagaraj, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 22 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.10.2023 slapped on her son, branding him
Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
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.
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 24.09.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 25.10.2023. 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
Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
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 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. ”
Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
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 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 25.10.2023 in B3/D.O.No.48/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nagaraj, S/o.Elumalai, aged
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
about 22 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem , 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] 03.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu To 1.The Secretary, Home Department, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Arakkonam.
Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.731 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
H.C.P.No.731 of 2024
03.06.2024
Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shanthi
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home Department, Prohibition & Excise Department
The District Collector & District Magistrate of Ranipet District
The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem
The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Arakkonam
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
