Ezhilarasi P v. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Mr.M.Rajkumar, 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 Panchaalai @ Kalaiyarasi (detenue) W/o.Jayakumar, 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 26.11.2025.

¶3It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenue was arrested on 25.10.2025 and she was detained on 26.11.2025. 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.

¶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 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 (25.10.2025) and order of detention (26.11.2025), 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.24/2025 dated 26.11.2025 is set aside.

¶9The detenue, viz., Panchaalai @ Kalaiyarasi, W/o.Jayakumar, female aged 35 years, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To

¶1The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

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

¶3The Superintendent of Police Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶4The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli.

¶5The Inspector of Police Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶7The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM 21-07-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ezhilarasi P W/o.Ponnusamy, No. 82, South Street, Silambur South, Silambur, Ariyalur - 608 901. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli. 5. The Inspector of Police Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District. ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No. 24/Goonda/Ariyalur /2025 dt. 26.11.2025 against the petitioner's daughter the Detenue Panchaalai @ Kalaiyarasi, Aged 35 years, W/o.Jayakumar is now confined in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Rajkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)