IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
B. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
H.C.P. No. 1696 of 2022
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Habeas Corpus Petition - Preventive Detention - The court set aside the impugned detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, on the grounds of unexplained delay in making the order, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging a preventive detention order made under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, on the basis of a ground case under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained delay in making the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an unexplained delay in making the detention order, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case. The court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition, set aside the impugned detention order, and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.
Issues: The main issue was the unexplained delay in making the detention order under the preventive detention law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, which established that unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order is unacceptable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition, set aside the impugned detention order, and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to filing memo No.76/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 14.07.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner Ramesh S/o. Balaraman aged 42 years now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 14.07.2022 bearing reference No.76/BCDFGISSSV//2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, third respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There are seven adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.352 of 2022 on the file of T-15 SRMC Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.P.Murthy, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of remand in the ground case is 04.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 14.07.2022.
6. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik''s case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under ''Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988'' [hereinafter ''PIT NDPS Act'' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the ''live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping'' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is ''unreasonable delay'' and other facet is ''unexplained delay''. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Bench in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported in 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2023/MHC/733 and series of other HCP matters.
9. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impu
AI
Unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order is unacceptable.
Unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can lead to a lack of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the detention order i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, with a focus on examining unreasonable....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unexplained delay in the collection of materials for a preventive detention order can render the detention invalid, and that preventive detent....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the categorization of unexplained d....
Unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can invalidate a preventive detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can lead to the snapping of the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of d....
The 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention must be examined, and unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order renders it unacceptable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the grounds of preventive detention and the purpose of detention, emphasizing the importance o....
Unreasonable and unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can render it invalid, as it snaps the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detentio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.