High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.129 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANH.C.P.No.129 of 2025P.Chilambarasan... Petitioner/Detenue Vs.1.The Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St. GeorgeChennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining AuthorityCoimbatore City,Coimbatore District.3.The Superintendent of PrisonCentral Prison – CoimbatoreCoimbatore District.4.State rep. by itsThe Inspector of PoliceE-1 Singanallur Police StationCoimbatore District.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire record, relating to the petitioner detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 19.12.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.132/G/IS/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner namely, P.Chilambarasan, S/o. Pandisamy, aged 19 years before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, the petitioner was detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.***For Petitioner: Mr. W.Camyles GandhiFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in C.No. 132/G/IS/2024, dated 19.12.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. The facts in teh ground case reveals that previous enmity and dispute existed between the complainant and the detenu, such nature of cases are to be dealth with by the authorities under ordinary law. The nature of criminal case registered and the ground case would be insufficient to form an opinion that there is likelihood of causing a breach of public order, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Another1, reads as follows;“54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules which permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not detained public disorder is the apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression “public order” take in every kind of disorders or only some of them? The answer to this 1. 1965 SCC Online SC 9Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025serves to distinguish “public order” from “law and order” because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before if can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances. 55. It will thus appear that just as “public Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025order” in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. By using the expression “maintenance of law and order” the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules.” 4. We are of the considered opinion that preventive detention orders should be invoked with extreme caution and sparingly. Mere presumption of causing public disorder is insufficient. There must be concrete and reliable materials available on record to ensure that a person is to be detained urgently by invoking Act 14 of 1982. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 20255. Further, mere registration of a criminal case is insufficient to invoke Act 14 of 1982. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must have a clear nexus, link and proximity relating to the adverse cases relied on. Since the cases registered against the detenu can be dealt with under the law of land, we are inclined to interfere.6. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent C.No. 132/G/IS/2024, dated 19.12.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. P.Chilambarasan, S/o.Pandisamy, aged 19 years, currently confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 31.01.2025vsgIndex : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking orderPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025To1.The Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St. GeorgeChennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining AuthorityCoimbatore City,Coimbatore District.3.The Superintendent of PrisonCentral Prison – CoimbatoreCoimbatore District.4.The Inspector of PoliceE-1 Singanallur Police StationCoimbatore District.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.129 of 2025S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.andM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.vsgH.C.P.No.129 of 202531.01.2025Page 8 of 8