Allowed

Kuppulakshmi v. State of Tamilnadu Represented by

Madras HC7 Jul 2026HCP/2388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged preventive detention of her husband as a Drug Offender under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found the month-long delay between arrest and detention order unexplained, snapping the live and proximate link, and set aside the detention, directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 23.09.2025 set aside; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.

Kuppulakshmi Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:2583

¶2

HCP No. 2388 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶9

HCP No. 2388 of 2025

¶10

Kuppulakshmi W/o.Saravanan (Detenue), No. 8734, Kannagi Nagar, Oggiam, Thuraipakkam, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu 600 097.

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

State of Tamilnadu Represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police Thambaram City Police, Chennai.

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

¶16

State Rep. by Inspector of Police PEW- Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai.

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ order or direction in the nature of a Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo No. 121/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dt. 23.09.2025 in detaining the detenue under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of Drug Offender and quash the

¶19

Page1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

2026:MHC:2583

¶22

HCP No. 2388 of 2025

¶23

same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, the petitioner’s husband Saravanan, S/o.Madasamy, aged 44 years who is detained at the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sarath Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)

¶25

Order

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶27

We have heard Mr.K.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

The wife of one M.Saravanan (detenu) S/o Madasamy, who was detained as a Drug Offender under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 23.09.2025.

¶29

It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 23.08.2025 and he was detained on 23.09.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention either in the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped.

¶30

Page2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

2026:MHC:2583

¶33

HCP No. 2388 of 2025

¶34

In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813) , a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows:

¶35

“ 21. 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 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. ”

¶36

5 . 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 (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arrest/date of proposal and 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 .

¶37

6 . In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428), this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the

¶38

Page3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

2026:MHC:2583

¶41

HCP No. 2388 of 2025

¶42

detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, the delay is more than a month, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

¶43

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (23.08.2025) and order of detention (23.09.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction.

¶44

Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order

¶45

passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.121/2025 dated 23.09.2025 is set aside.

¶46

The detenu, viz., N.Saravanan, S/o.Madasamy, male aged 44 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other

¶47

case.

¶48

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 07-07-2026

¶49

ssm

¶50

Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶51

Note to Registry: Issue Today.

¶52

Page4 of 6