Mandatory communication of grounds for detention within the specified time frame and the requirement for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.

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 detention order passed in Memo No.131/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 30.08.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu i.e., the body of Nishanth, S/o.Ravichandran, male, aged about 32 years, the detenu detained under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Memo No.131/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 30.08.2022 herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and brevity] has been filed by father of the detenu assailing 'detention order dated 30.08.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.131/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, the fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and the second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by the 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 'Sexual Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(ggg) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.663 of 2022 on the file of Pallikaranai Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 354-D, 376 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. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John learned counsel for all respondents are before us.

5. In the support affidavit, very many points/grounds have been urged/raised but two points find favour with us and therefore we would set out those two points infra and refrain from legal drill of examining the other points.

6. The first point urged by learned counsel for petitioner is that there is infraction/violation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 as the ground on which the detention order has been made has not been communicated to the detenu within five days from the date of detention (To be noted, the grounds have been served to the detenus by the prison authorities in the form of a booklet and therefore the same shall be referred to as 'booklet'). Adverting to the aforementioned provision of law, learned counsel submitted that the date of detention order and detention pursuant to preventive detention order is dated 30.08.2022, it was served on the detenu on the same day i.e., on 30.08.2022. The point is, the 'grounds on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made' was served on the detenu in the form of a booklet [hereinafter 'grounds booklet' for the sake of convenience] only on 05.09.2022. Learned counsel submits that this is a clear infraction of the statutory requirement qua Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 and such infraction of a statutorily imperative requirement is fatal qua impugned preventive detention order is learned counsel's further say. We perused the grounds booklet and a scanned reproduction of the typical page in the booklet is as follows:

7. One point that arises for consideration is whether the date of detention should be included or excluded in computing this 5 days. To be noted, the date of detention in the case on hand is 30.08.2