Madras High Court
S.Govindammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2310 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2310 of 2024
S.Govindammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
S-7, Maddipakkam Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
detention order in memo no. 678/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 19.06.2024
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2310 of 2024
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982 and set
aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioners son
Kaliselvan @ Pura Kalaiselvan the detenue, now confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's son
Kaliselvan @ Pura Kalaiselvan Son of Seeman, aged abort 34 years the
detenue herein set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthik
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
Memo no.678/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 19.06.2024 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 14.05.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 19.06.2024. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in Memo no. 678/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 19.06.2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Kaliselvan @ Pura Kalaiselvan, Son of Seeman, aged abort 34 years, now
confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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.]
30.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
S-7, Maddipakkam Police Station,
Chennai District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
30.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
