Madras High Court
Seetha Lakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2266 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2024
Seetha Lakshmi ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Avadi,
Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai - 600 062. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2266 of 2024
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein No.138/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
21.08.2024 and quash the same and produce the detenue Thiru.Sadhasivam,
Male, aged 31 years, S/o. Balaraman TPDA No.6212 now detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.G.Senthil Kumar
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
21.08.2024 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 18.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.08.2024. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 order in the present case,
is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in proceedings No.138/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Sadhasivam,
aged 31 years, S/o. Balaraman confined at 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.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
26.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Avadi,
Chennai - 600 054.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai - 600 062.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
