A.Shakunas Begam v. The Additional Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.3111 of 2024 A.Shakunas Begam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary Government of Tamilnadu Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore 4.The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Police Station Coimbatore City ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the

order of detention passed by the second respondent herein and made in C.No.118/G/IS/2024 dated 24.10.2024, and set aside the same and directing the second respondent to produce the detenu, petitioner's husband viz.S.Abbas, S/o.Sabibulla, aged about 42 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and thereby set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Babu For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. S.Abbas, aged about 42 years, S/o.Sabibulla, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.10.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Cyber Law Offender" 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 [Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. 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 pointed out that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the stale cases and kept irrelevant newspaper cuttings in the Booklet filed by them. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to detain the detenu, has no live and proximate connection with the activities alleged to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order, and that there is no compelling necessity for detention. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telengana and others reported in '(2018) 12 SCC 150'.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sama Aruna's case (supra), has observed as follows :

"22.We are of the view, that the detention order

in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 23.In this case, we find the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerela and Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 741] , this Court observed, where the authority takes into account stale incidents which have gone by to seed it would be safe to infer that the satisfaction of the authority is not a genuine one."

5. On a perusal of the records particularly in page No.119 in Volume I of the Booklet, this Court finds that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the irrelevant newspaper cuttings which has no material to

indicate that the incident relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the substantive satisfaction to detain the detenu, has a live and proximate link with the activities of the detenu which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sama Aruna's case (supra), incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the inquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the Statute. The incident relied upon by the Detaining Authority through the newspaper cutting is stale and does not indicate the immediate need to detain the detenu. The Detaining Authority has taken into account only stale incident and therefore, there is no compelling necessity to detain the detenu in the ground case without a trial.

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

respondent on 24.10.2024 in C.No.118/G/IS/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., S.Abbas, aged 42 years, S/o.Sabibulla, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 16.06.2025 kas Index: Yes/No To 1.The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi.

5.The Inspector of Police,

Thiyagadurugam, Kallakurichi.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas H.C.P.No.3111 of 2024 16.06.2025