Madras High Court
Hariharan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.3208 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3208 of 2024
Hariharan ... Petitioner/Son of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Pallikaranai, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.3208 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
petitioner's father detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention
order dated 06.11.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in
proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.100/2024 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the said petitioner's father
namely V.Kanagavelu, aged 45 years, son of Varathan, before this Court and
set him at liberty, now petitioner's father detained at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
for Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent in
proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.100/2024 dated 06.11.2024 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 27.09.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.11.2024. 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
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent,
in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.100/2024 dated 06.11.2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
V.Kanagavelu, aged 45 years, S/o. Varathan confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
08.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its 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,
Tambaram City.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Pallikaranai, Chennai.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
08.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
