In Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura (
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act s. 2(e)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Superintendent Of PrisonCentral Prison -IIPuzhal, Chennai 600 066...Respondent(s) in HCP.No.2531 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 2 of 63. The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison -II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.4. The Inspector Of Police R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station…
- 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 (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the…
- Para 77. In 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 5 of 6detention order after the…
Judgment
HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17-07-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANHCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025 LathaW/o. Manickavasagam, Keezhavastha Chavadi, Soorakudi Taluk, Thanjavur District...Petitioner in HCP.No.2531 of 2025 MaheshS/o. Sri Ramulu, No.201, D-Block, Moonlight Apartment, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 052...Petitioner in HCP.No.2665 of 2025Vs1.The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St George Chennai - 600 009.
The Commissioner Of PoliceGreater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai -600 007...Respondent(s) in both HCP’s3.The Inspector Of PoliceR-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
The Superintendent Of PrisonCentral Prison -IIPuzhal, Chennai 600 066...Respondent(s) in HCP.No.2531 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 2 of 63. The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison -II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.4. The Inspector Of Police R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai...Respondent(s) in HCP.No.2665 of 2025 Prayer in HCP.No.2531 of 2025:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ of direction calling for the records relating to the detention order in memo No.898/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son THIRU.VIGNESHWARAN, S/O MANICKAVASAGAM, aged about 22 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son THIRU.VIGNESHWARAN, S/O, MANICKAVASAGAM, aged about 22 years the detenue herein at liberty.
Prayer in HCP.No.2665 of 2025:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction calling for the records relating to the direction order in Memo No.895/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the petitioner’s son Thiru. Sampathkumar S/o. Mahesh, aged about 21 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set the petitioner’s son Thiru. Sampathkumar S/o. Mahesh aged about 21 years the detenue herein at Liberty. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 3 of 6 In both HCP’sFor Petitioner(s):Mr.R.MuthukumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)Common Order(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)We have heard Mr.R.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents, in both HCP’s.2.
In HCP.No.2531 of 2025, the mother of one Vigneshwaran (detenu), S/o. Manickavasagam, who was detained as a ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 03.11.2025. 3. In HCP.No.2665 of 2025, the father of one Sampathkumar(detenu), S/o. Mahesh, who was detained as a ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 03.11.2025. 4. It is seen from the impugned orders and the grounds of detention that the detenus were arrested on 24.09.2025 and they were detained on 03.11.2025. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 4 of 6between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped.
In 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.”
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 (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.
In 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 5 of 6detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present cases, the delay is more than a month, 41 days to be exact, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (24.09.2025) and order of detention (03.11.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction.
Operative part
Hence, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No. 898/2025 and BBCDEFGISSSV No. 895/2025, both dated 03.11.2025, are set aside.
The detenus, viz., Vigneshwaran, S/o. Manickavasagam, aged 22 years, and Sampathkumar, S/o.Mahesh, aged 21 years, both confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 17-07-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesvsNote to Registry : Issue Today https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 2025__________Page 6 of 6DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN J.vsTo1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St George Chennai - 600 0092.The Commissioner Of PoliceGreater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai -600 0073.The Inspector Of PoliceR-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent Of PrisonCentral Prison IIPuzhal, Chennai 600 066.5.The Superintendent Of PrisonCentral Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.HCP Nos. 2531 and 2665 of 202517-07-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Act — s. 2(e).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 03 Nov 2025. The bench was ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.