Allowed¶47

Gomathi v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Jan 2025HCP/2737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; H.C.P.No.2737 of 2024; habeas corpus; preventive detention; GOONDA; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Section 2(f); detention order quashed; inordinate delay in passing detention order after arrest; live and proximate link snapped; subjective satisfaction; Article 226 writ; Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813; Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332; Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428; detenu set at liberty; Central Prison Puzhal; Commissioner of Police Avadi City.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 12.09.2024 set aside; detenu Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. ¶47

Gomathi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention order dated 12.09.2024 set aside; detenu Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order dated 12.09.2024 is liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in passing the order of detention after the detenu's arrest on 08.07.2024, snapping the live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention.

¶29

Court's answer

In view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention after the arrest of the detenu, the live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention stands snapped and the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The detention order in proceedings No.155/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024 is set aside, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the detenu Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (H.C.P.No.2737 of 2024) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India allowed. Preventive detention order in proceedings No.155/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City detaining the detenu Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai as a GOONDA under 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, quashed on the sole ground urged: unexplained and inordinate delay between the detenu's arrest on 08.07.2024 and the passing of the detention order on 12.09.2024, which snapped the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. Reliance placed on Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813), Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332) and Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428). Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP.No.2737 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2737 of 2024

¶7

Gomathi

¶8

... Petitioner/Mother of the

¶9

Detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

Commissioner of Police, Avadi City,.

¶13

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, T-6, Avadi Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

HCP.No.2737 of 2024

¶18

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 passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in BCDFGISSSV No.155/2024 dated 12.09.2024 in detain the detenu under 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai S/o. Murugan aged about 25 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶22

The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.155/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

¶23

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

¶24

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

HCP.No.2737 of 2024

¶28

Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶29

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

¶30

In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 08.07.2024 and

¶31

thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 12.09.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

hereunder:-

¶35

“ 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

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

HCP.No.2737 of 2024

¶39

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. ”

¶40

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 .

¶41

Page 4 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

HCP.No.2737 of 2024

¶44

reported in

¶45

In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' ,

¶46

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.

¶47

Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, in proceedings No.155/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed . The detenu viz., Rajasekar @ Rajesh @ Rajubhai, aged 25 years, S/o. Murugan confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶48