Shanthi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Gevernment

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The mother of one Poovarasan alias Poovayi (detenu) S/o Sankar, who was detained as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short 'Act') has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 30.10.2025.

¶3It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 30.09.2025 and he was detained on 30.10.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention either in the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped. Page2 of 6

¶4In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813), a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows: "21. 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."

¶5Drawing 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 (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arrest/date of proposal and 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.

¶6In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428), this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the Page3 of 6 detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, the delay is more than a month, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

¶7In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (30.09.2025) and order of detention (30.10.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction.

¶8Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.17/2025 dated 30.10.2025 is set aside.

¶9The detenu, viz., Poovarasan alias Poovayi, S/o.Sankar, male aged 24 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 06-07-2026 ssm Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note to Registry: Issue Today. Page4 of 6 To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The District Collector and District Magistrate Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

¶4The Superintendent of Police Perambalur District.

¶5The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur District.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶7The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. Page5 of 6 HCPoNo.o2718oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SSM HCPoNo.o2718oofo2025 06-07-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Shanthi W/o. Sankar, Kamban Nagar, Tirchy Main Road, Perambalur Town and Taluk, Perambalur District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Perambalur District, Perambalur. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4. The Superintendent of Police Perambalur District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ order or direction and in particular to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.17/2025 dated 30.10.2025 and set Page1 of 6 aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioners son namely, Poovarasan @ Poovayi, S/o Sankar, aged about 24 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)