Allowed¶53

Sarojini v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Madras HC23 Jan 2025HCP/35/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982; habeas corpus; Article 226; delay between arrest (22.06.2024) and detention order (29.07.2024); live and proximate link snapped; subjective satisfaction doubted; non-application of mind by detaining authority; Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813); T.A. Abdul Rahaman v. State of Kerala ((1989) 4 SCC 741); detention order quashed; detenue set at liberty; Madras High Court; HCP allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 quashed; detenue Prasanth, S/o.Mahalingam, aged about 30 years, directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise required in connection with any other case. ¶53

Sarojini Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed after an unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than one month from the detenu's arrest on 22.06.2024, snapping the live and proximate link and casting doubt on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

¶31

Court's answer

The long and unexplained delay of more than one month between the detenu's arrest on 22.06.2024 and the passing of the detention order on 29.07.2024 is sufficient to draw the inference that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind for the purpose of issuing the impugned order under Act 14 of 1982.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

On that ground, the impugned order of detention in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 is quashed, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, and the detenue Prasanth, S/o.Mahalingam, aged about 30 years, confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus (Art. 226) by the wife of detenue Prasanth, detained under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 by detention order C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024, passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam, and confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli. Sole ground: the detention order was passed more than one month after the detenu's arrest on 22.06.2024. Relying on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813) and T.A. Abdul Rahaman v. State of Kerala ((1989) 4 SCC 741), the Court held that an unreasonable and unexplained delay snaps the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, and permits the inference of non-application of mind. Accordingly, the detention order was quashed and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.35 of 2025

Sarojini

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,

¶14

Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

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

¶19

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶20

Thiruchirappalli District.

¶21

5.The Inspector of Police, Velipalayam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents

¶22

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 in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's Husband PRASANTH S/O MAHALINGAM aged about 30 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirapallil before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jawahar

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

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

¶30

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶31

The ground taken in the present petition is that the detenu was arrested on 22.06.2024 and the impugned order of detention has been issued on 29.07.2024 after a lapse of more than one month.

¶32

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' , reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' held as follows:

¶33

“ 20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus

¶34

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

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶38

unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. ”

¶39

3.1. In the case of T.A. Abdul Rahaman Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

¶40

reported in (1989) 4 SCC 741, the Apex Court held as follows:

¶41

10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus : The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.

¶45

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶46

11. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.

¶47

The fact about the long delay would be sufficient to drop an inference that the detaining authority has failed to apply their mind for the purpose of

¶48

Page 5 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

HCP.No.35 of 2025

¶51

issuing the impugned order under Act 14 of 1982.

¶52

5.Accordingly, the impugned order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in C.O.C.No.17/2024, dated 29.07.2024 is quashed and the Habeas

¶53

Corpus Petition stands allowed . The detenue, namely, Prasanth, S/o.Mahalingam, aged about 30 years, now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.

¶54

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 23.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶55

kak

¶56

¶57