Wife challenged a Goondas Act detention of her husband as a drug offender. The court found an inordinate, unexplained delay between the arrest and the detention order, which snapped the live and proximate link, and quashed the detention.
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.817 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
K.Sharmila ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Avadi City Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal Chennai District
Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
4.The Inspector of Police M-4, Redhills Police Station Law and Order, Avadi City Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo No.08/BCDFGISSSV/2014 dated 24.01.2024, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Karthik @ Youtube Karthik, aged about 31 years, (who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.
Thiru.Karthik @ Youtube Karthik, aged about 31 years, S/o.Jagadesan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
the 2nd respondent dated 24.01.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him 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 10.12.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 24.01.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' ,
Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
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:-
“ 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 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 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 2nd respondent on
Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
24.01.2024 in No.08/BCDFGISSS V/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Karthik @ Youtube Karthik , aged about 31 years, S/o.Jagadesan , 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] 23.07.2024
kas Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation To.
1.The Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Avadi City Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal Chennai District
4.The Inspector of Police M-4, Redhills Police Station
Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
Law and Order, Avadi City Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
kas
H.C.P.No.817 of 2024
23.07.2024
Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inordinate unexplained delay between arrest on 10.12.2023 and detention order dated 24.01.2024 snapped the live link, rendering the 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
K.Sharmila
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal
The Inspector of Police M-4, Redhills Police Station
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
