Madras High Court
Vijayakanth vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2080 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2080 of 2024
Vijayakanth ... Petitioner/Grandson of
the Detenue
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2080 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records connected with the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.48/2024-C2
dated 02.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to produce the detenue namely the petitioner's grand mother
Sagunthala, aged about 73 years detained in the Special Prison for Women,
Vellore before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj
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
02.08.2024 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenue was arrested on 13.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.08.2024. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings D.O.No.48/2024-C2 dated 02.08.2024 is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,
Sagunthala w/o. Anbazhagan, aged 73 years confined at the Special Prison
for Women, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.M., J.]
18.09.2024
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 & Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.MALA, J.
veda
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
