Madras High Court
G.Revathy vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 30 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.896 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.896 of 2025
G.Revathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4.The Inspector of Police
P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station
Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
H.C.P.No.896 of 2025
order of detention passed by the second respondent herein and made in
BCDFGISSSV No.143/2025 dated 07.03.2025 and to set aside the same
and directing the third respondent to produce the detenu, the petitioner's
husband Naveen, S/o.Durai, male aged about 25 years, now confined in
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and thereby setting him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kalaiarasan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of detenu viz. Naveen, aged
about 25 years, S/o.Durai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.03.2025
slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
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.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 27.01.2025 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 07.03.2025. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
“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 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 ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
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 07.03.2025 in No.143/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Naveen, male, aged
about 25 years, S/o.Durai, 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.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
30.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4.The Inspector of Police
P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station
Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
