Madras High Court
Kalaiyarasi vs The Secretary To The Government on 4 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2151 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2151 of 2024
Kalaiyarasi ... Petitioner/Wife of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Magistrate and District Collector of
Viluppuram District, Viluppuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Viluppuram District, Viluppuram.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kottakuppam PEW Police Station,
Viluppuram District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2151 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 20.08.2024 in
Rc.No.C2/43/2024 against the petitioner's husband Ayyappan, Male aged 34
years, S/o. Ramalingam, 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. 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 20.08.2024 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.
Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2151 of 2024
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 05.07.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 20.08.2024. 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 Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2151 of 2024 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', 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 Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2151 of 2024 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 in proceedings Rc.No.C2/43/2024 dated 20.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ayyappan, aged 34 years, Son of Ramalingam confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
04.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2151 of 2024
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. District Magistrate and District Collector of Viluppuram District, Viluppuram.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Viluppuram District, Viluppuram.
5 The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6. The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam PEW Police Station, Viluppuram District.
7. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2151 of 2024 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda H.C.P.No.2151 of 2024 04.10.2024 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis