Madras High Court
Ravi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2369 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2369 of 2024
Ravi ... Petitioner/Father of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Huzur Road,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore – 18.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison - Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4. State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
PEW- Coimbatore,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2369 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to the
petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention
order, dated 28.08.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in
proceedings C.No. 102/G/IS/2024, quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son
namely R.Ajith, S/o. Ravi, aged 23 years before this Court and set the
petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained
at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jayam
for Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 28.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 24.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 28.08.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay
from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise,
between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the
grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the
detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
6. 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', reported in '2023 SCC
OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from
the date of arrest/date of proposal till 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu',
reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', this Court had held that the delay of
36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would
snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of
detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the Remand Order enclosed at page nos.61 to 64 in Volume - I of the
booklet served on the detenu has been improperly translated.
9. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu'
reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution,
observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making
representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
supply every material in the language which can be understood by the
detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been relied
upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of
detention and a document which finds a mere reference
in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of
a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of
detention has been held to be fatal to continued
detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice
is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of
such a document would amount to denial of the right of
being communicated the grounds and of being afforded
the opportunity of making an effective representation
against the order. But it would not be so where the
document merely finds a reference in the order of
detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case,
the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has
to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making
an effective representation. What applies to a document
would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of
the document in the language known to and understood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the detenu, should the document be in a different
language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view, the
non-supply of the Tamil version of the English
document, on the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore,
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she
is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal
is accordingly allowed.”
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings C.No.102/G/IS/2024 dated 28.08.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
R.Ajith, aged 23 years, S/o. Ravi confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
17.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Huzur Road,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore – 18.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison - Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
PEW- Coimbatore,
Coimbatore.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
