Wife challenged preventive detention of her husband as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found an unexplained delay of one and a half months between arrest and the detention order, snapping the live link, relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik, 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(MD)No.64 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.64 of 2025
M.Petchiyammal
... Petitioner
vs.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The office of Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, pertaining to the detention order, dated 10.10.2024 in No. 66/BCDFGISSSV/2024 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue / husband of the petitioner by named S.Mariaselvam @ Selvam, aged 36/2024, S/o. Selvaraj detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District / 3rd respondent before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
Page No.1 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ]
The petitioner is the wife of detenu viz., S.Mariaselvam @ Selvam, S/o.
Selvaraj, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No. 66/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 10.10.2024 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.
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.
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
Page No.2 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
was arrested on 22.08.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 10.10.2024 i.e., after a lapse of 1 ½ month. 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.
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.
5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that collection of details has caused the delay in passing the impugned detention order, a perusal of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows that this is only the ground case and there is no adverse case pending against him. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 22.08.2024 and the detention order was passed on 10.10.2024. This shows an inordinate delay
Page No.3 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
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.
6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, 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:-
"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
Page No.4 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
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."
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.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No. 66/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 10.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., S.Mariaselvam @ Selvam, S/o. Selvaraj, aged about 36 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 08.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp
Page No.5 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
To:
2.The Commissioner of Police, The office of Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
Page No.6 of 7
HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
trp
ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.64 of 2025
DATED : 08.07.2025
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the unexplained inordinate delay between arrest on 22.08.2024 and detention order dated 10.10.2024 snapped the live link and vitiated the preventive detention order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of TripuraFollowed¶6
2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Petchiyammal
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9
The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City
The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
R. Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
