Syed Ali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/444/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; habeas corpus; Article 226; Goonda; Section 2(f) Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; delay in passing detention order; unexplained delay of 25 days; solitary case; live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention; Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura 2022 SCC Online SC 1333; Central Prison Palayamkottai; District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi; detention order set aside; release of detenu; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Order of detention M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025 dated 16.12.2025 passed by the second respondent set aside; detenu Abubucker, S/o. Seyadali, aged about 22 years, directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ¶¶30

Syed Ali Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention of Abubucker under Order No. M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025 dated 16.12.2025 as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is lawful and liable to be quashed in this habeas corpus petition. +2 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The issue of delay in passing the detention order is squarely covered by the Apex Court judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 SCC Online SC 1333); the 25-day unexplained delay between arrest and detention order was a ground on which the Court found the matter covered and inclined to interfere.

¶¶26-27

Ratio / Principle

The detention order is vitiated because there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent.

¶¶28-29

Key takeaways

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed; the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025 dated 16.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the detenu Abubucker is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.) allowed H.C.P.(MD)No.444 of 2026 filed by the father of the detenu and set aside the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025 dated 16.12.2025 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, detaining Abubucker as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found the issue of the 25-day unexplained delay between arrest (22.11.2025) and the detention order (16.12.2025) squarely covered by Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 SCC Online SC 1333), and further held the detention order vitiated because there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention was completely absent. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 04.06.2026

¶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.444 of 2026

¶8

Syed Ali .. Petitioner / Father of the

¶9

detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 004.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi-627 811.

¶13

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

¶14

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 Detention Order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in Order No.MHS. Confdl No.99/2025, Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

dated 16.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Abubucker, S/o.Seyadali, aged about 22 years (now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai) before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name, Abubucker, S/o.Seyadali, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025, dated 16.12.2025 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.

¶22

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. Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenue was arrested on 22.11.2025 and the detention order was passed on 16.12.2025 and there is a delay of 25 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.99/2025, dated 16.12.2025, passed by the Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Abubucker, S/o.Seyadali, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 04.06.2026

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶35

Indu

¶36

¶37