Murugan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
91/2023-C2, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore..... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention Page 1…
- Para 66. 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…
Judgment
HCP.No.2510 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.03.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2510 of 2023 Murugan... PetitionerVs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
The Inspector of Police, Manglam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore..... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2510 of 2023order, dated 15.11.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings D.O.No.91/2023-C2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Elumalai (a) Santhosh, aged 22 years, Son of Murugan, before this Hon'ble High Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Vellore. For Petitioner: Mr.C.C. ChellappanFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Elumalai @ Santhosh, aged about 22 years, S/o.Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.11.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2510 of 20232.
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. 4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 02.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 15.11.2023. 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:-Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2510 of 2023“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.”
Operative part
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. Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2510 of 20237. 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 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 on 15.11.2023 in D.O. No.91/2023-C2, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Elumalai @ Santhosh, aged about 22 years, S/o.Murugan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 21.03.2024Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoPage 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.2510 of 2023bgaPage 6 of 7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 91/2023-C2, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.