Allowed

Murugan v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Madras HC16 Sept 2025HCP(MD)/949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order detaining the petitioner as a 'Goonda'. The court found an inordinate, unexplained delay between arrest and the detention order, snapping the live link, relied on Supreme Court precedent and set aside the detention, directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.66 of 2024 dated 09.10.2024 set aside; detenu Murugan directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Murugan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶8

Murugan

¶9

... Petitioner/detenu

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶13

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶14

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶15

Chennai-600 009.

¶16

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate/Detaining Authority, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.

¶17

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a

¶19

writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed by the respondent No.2 vide his order in Detention Order No.66 of

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

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

¶22

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶23

2024 dated 09.10.2024 and quash the same, consequently directing the respondents to produce the detenu by name Murugan, son of Perumal, aged about 51 years, now detailed at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

[Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.]

¶28

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Murugan son of Perumal, aged about 51 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent in detention order No.66 of 2024 dated 09.10.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶29

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶30

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶31

Page 2 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶34

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 28.08.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 09.10.2024, i.e., after a lapse of 1 ½ 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.

¶35

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶36

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.

¶37

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶40

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 there is no adverse case pending against him.The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 28.08.2024 and the detention order was passed on 09.10.2024. 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.

¶41

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

¶42

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶45

detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶46

"20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the

¶47

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."

¶48

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.

¶49

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶50

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

¶51

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶52

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of the second respondent in detention order No.66 of 2024 dated 09.10.2024, is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan, son of Perumal, aged about 51 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶53

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

¶54

16.09.2025

¶55

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

¶56

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶57

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

¶58

H.C.P.(MD) No.949 of 2025

¶59

To:

¶60

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶61

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate/Detaining Authority, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.

¶62