Allowed

Chithra v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Jun 2024HCP(MD)/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention of her husband under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The High Court set aside the detention order due to unexplained inordinate delay of over two months between arrest and the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in P.D.O.No.19 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 is set aside; the detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for another case.

Chithra Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶7

Chithra ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.State represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in P.D.O.No.19 of 2023, dated 23.11.2023, on the file of the second respondent

¶11

Page 1 of 7

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶14

and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Vadivel, son of Subbiah, aged about 34 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶18

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Vadivel, son of Subbiah, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.O.No.19 of 2023, dated 23.11.2023 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶19

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶23

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 04.09.2023, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 23.11.2023, i.e., after a lapse of more than two months. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

¶24

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶25

5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that collection of details has caused the delay in passing the impugned detention order, a

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶29

perusal of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows that there is no adverse case. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 04.09.2023 and the detention order was passed on 23.11.2023. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶30

6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura,

¶31

reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶32

"20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of

¶33

Page 4 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶36

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."

¶37

7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶38

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.O.No.19 of 2023, dated 23.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vadivel, son of Subbaiah,

¶39

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶42

aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention

¶43

is required in connection with any other case.

¶44

[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]

¶45

05.06.2024

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶47

abr

¶48

To:

¶49

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶50

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶51

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukkottai,

¶52

Pudukkottai District.

¶53

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.

¶54

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶55

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶58

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. abr

¶59

H.C.P.(MD) No.128 of 2024

¶60

05.06.2024

¶61

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chithra v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chithra v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandiyammal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

S.Santhanamari Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Panjavarnam Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Ammachi @ Vasanthi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Mahara Jothi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Ramalakshmi Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government