Allowed

S.Guru v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/377/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas Corpus petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of detention passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court interfered due to an unexplained delay in passing the order and the absence of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and its purpose.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No. 103 of 2025 is set aside, and the detenu Ajith Kumar is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

S.Guru Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 16.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.377 of 2026

¶8

S.Guru .. Petitioner / Mother of the detenu Vs.

¶9

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 24.12.2025 passed by the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl No.103 of 2025 and quash the same and produce the detenu,

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

Ajith Kumar, son of Sudalaimuthu, aged about 28 years, detained now at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

¶19

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Ajith Kumar, son of Sudalaimuthu, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.103 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶20

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned

¶24

counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu was arrested on 29.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 24.12.2025. There is a delay of 25 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶25

In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the

¶26

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

¶27

The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a

¶28

solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the detained order passed by the second respondent.

¶29

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.103 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 passed by Page 3 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ajith Kumar, son of Sudalaimuthu, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith

¶32

unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 16.06.2026

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG

¶35

¶36

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.

¶37

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶38

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli.

¶39

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶43

TSG

¶44

H.C.P.(MD)No.377 of 2026

¶45

16.06.2026

¶46

Page 5 of 5

¶47

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

S.Guru v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Guru v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Selva Ganesh

L. Shenbagavalli Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

The Manager Vs S.Pandi

Senthil @ Senthil Kumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kumbakonam East

Subbu @ Subramanian Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons And Correctional Services

The Branch Manager, Vs Krishnabhoomi