Asma v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.No.1850 of 2024 Asma ...
Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.
....
Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Mr.Mohammed Syed, Age 48 years, S/o.Abdul Khadar, who is detained in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and pass an order to call for the records of detention order passed by the second respondent in No.89/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 07.02.2024 against the petitioner's husband Mr.Mohammed Syed and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Rafi Babu For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent herein in No.89/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 07.02.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The ground taken in the present petition is that the detenue was arrested on 25.12.2023 and the impugned order of detention has been issued on 07.02.2024 after a lapse of more than one and half month.
3. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' held as follows:
"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."
3.1. In the case of T.A. Abdul Rahaman Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (1989) 4 SCC 741, the Apex Court held as follows:
10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus : The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.
11. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.
4. The fact about the long delay would be sufficient to draw an inference that the detaining authority has failed to apply their mind for the purpose of issuing the impugned order under Act 14 of 1982. 5.Accordingly, the impugned order of detention in No.89/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 07.02.2024, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenue, namely, Mohammed Syed, aged 48 years, S/o.Abdul Khadar, detained in the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [R.S.V., J.] sli 19.08.2024 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
sli To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1850 of 2024 19.08.2024