Sivam @ Sivakumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1133 of 2024 Sivam @ Sivakumar ... Petitioner vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention made in P.D.No.23/2024 dated 15.08.2024 on the file of the District Collector and District Page No.1 of 7
Magistrate, Thanjavur District, the 2nd respondent herein, branding the detenu by name Sivam @ Sivakumar aged about 48 years, S/o. Palanisamy, as Goonda who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, and quash the impugned order of detention and set him at liberty by producing the petitioner before this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Sivam @ Sivakumar S/o. Palanisamy, aged about 48 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.23/2024 dated 15.08.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
Page No.2 of 7
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 10.06.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 15.08.2024, i.e., after a lapse of more than two months. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
Page No.3 of 7
5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 10.06.2024 and the detention order was passed on 15.08.2024. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- Page No.4 of 7
"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."
7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.23/2024 dated 15.08.2024, passed by the Page No.5 of 7
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Sivam alias Sivakumar, S/o. Palanisamy, aged about 48 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 03.06.2025 Index : Yes / No bala To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.6 of 7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 03.06.2025 Page No.7 of 7