Madras High Court
Venkatamma vs The Secretary To Government on 18 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.170 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.170 of 2025
Venkatamma ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District
3.The Superintendent of Police
Office of Superintendent of Police
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Salem
5.The Inspector of Police
Krishnagiri Town Police Station
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.170 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in S.C.No.43/2024 dated
23.11.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
body of the detenu Thirupathi, S/o.Munusamy, aged about 51 years, now
detained at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.
Thirupathi, aged about 51 years, S/o.Munusamy, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 23.11.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual
Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders,
Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 07.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 23.11.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 23.11.2024 in S.C.No.43/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thirupathi, aged about 51
years, S/o.Munusamy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
18.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District
3.The Superintendent of Police
Office of Superintendent of Police
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Salem
5.The Inspector of Police
Krishnagiri Town Police Station
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
