Kumutha vs The Secretary To The Government
2026 Latest Caselaw 1228 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1228 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Kumutha vs The Secretary To The Government on 13 March, 2026

Author: Anita Sumanth

Bench: Anita Sumanth

    2026:MHC:1059


                                                                                       H.C.P.No.1583 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 13.03.2026

                                                        CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
                                                    and
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              H.C.P.No. 1583 of 2025

                     KUMUTHA, Female aged 24 years,
                     W/o. Jeeva, No.535,
                     Muruan Koil Backside,
                     Seemaputhur,
                     Kunnagampoondi Village,
                     Chithirakavur Post,
                     Vandhavasi Taluk,
                     Thiruvannamalai District
                                                                                             .. Petitioner

                                                               vs
                     1.The Secretary to the Government,
                       Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
                       Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

                     2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District,
                     Cuddalore.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

                     4.The Superintendent of Prison,
                       Central Prison, Cuddalore.

                     5.The Inspector of Police,
                       Cuddalore New Town Police Station,
                       Cuddalore District.
                                                                                         ...Respondents
                     1/6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
                                                                                               H.C.P.No.1583 of 2025


                     Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     praying to issue to writ of habeas corpus to call for records in connection

                     with the order of detention passed by second respondent 23.07.2025 in

                     C3/D.O./96/2025 against the petitioner’s husband Jeeva, Male, aged 25

                     years, S/o. Venkatesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and

                     set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before

                     this Court and set him at liberty.


                                  For Petitioner       :         Mr.D.Balaji

                                  For Respondents :              Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                                 assisted by
                                                                 Mr.M.Sylvester John


                                                              ORDER

(Made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)

The wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order dated

23.07.2025 passed against her husband who had been branded as Sexual

Offender under section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention

Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short ‘Act’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

impugned order of detention has to be quashed on the ground that there is

a delay between the date of arrest and the order of detention and hence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )

the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the

purpose of detention stood snapped and submitted that the point is

squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushanta

Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813'.

3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra),

has held as follows:-

“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.”

5. The above observations would squarely applicable to the facts of

the present case as the detenu was arrested on 19.06.2025 and the

detention order was passed on 23.07.2025. The delay has not been

explained in any manner. Therefore, the live and proximate link between

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )

the order of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped and the

detention order is liable to be quashed.

6. In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and

the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in

C3/D.O./96/2025, dated 23.07.2025 is hereby set aside.

7. The detenu, viz., Jeeva, S/o. Venkatesan, aged 25 years, who is

now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is hereby directed to be set at