The unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can render a preventive detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated in his office Ref.C3/D.O.No.41/2023 dated 09.05.2023 against the petitioner''s son by name Thiru.Kathiravan, son of Vijayakumar, aged about 21 years, now confined at Central Prison,Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court an set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 09.05.2023 bearing reference C3/D.O.No.41/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned preventive 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 is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.35 of 2023 on the file of Panamadangi Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 376 read with 511 and 307 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 preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.E.Kannadasan, 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 arrest in the ground case is 08.04.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 09.05.2023.

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 in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand 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 a proposal by a 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 the 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 Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu a