Preventive detention invalid without proof of public order threat; arrest grounds must be served timely under Art.22.

ORDER :

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

The wife of one Varaaki S/o. Radhakrishnan (detenu) Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai has approached this Court challenging detention order dated 03.12.2025 passed on the basis that the detenu is a Sexual Offender under Section 2 (ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (in short ‘Act’).

2. The submissions of Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the detention order is bad in law and contrary to the mandate of the Act. It has been passed in excess of jurisdiction conferred on the detaining authority.

3. Learned counsel would argue that there is no justification in classifying the detenu as a sexual offender; that the charges made against him under Sections 74 , 79, 296 (b) and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of the Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 are wholly unjustified and have no basis; that the detenu has been singled out for discriminatory, biased, and illegal treatment; that the intimation of arrest has not been produced or served on the detenu as required by law; that the grounds of arrest were never served by the detaining authority, but given only by the Court in violation of the stipulated procedure; that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is incorrect; that the incident on the basis of which the ground case has been framed never took place; that there has been an untold delay in dispatching and disposal of the representation of the detenu, which is in violation of the statutory provisions and in all, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the above grounds.

4. Learned counsel also takes us in detail through the orders of this Court passed in this HCP on 30.12.2025 and in Crl.M.P.No.2597 of 2026 in HCP.No.2714 of 2025 on 27.02.2026. He draws attention to various other proceedings taken by the police authorities as against the detenu to buttress his submission that the detenu has been victimized by the authorities without any justification or basis in law or in fact.

5. He relies on the following decisions to support his submissions.

1. JaseelaShaji v. Union of India and others ,(2024) 9 SCC 53.

2. Vaddi Lakshmi v. State of Telangana and others ,(2024) 17 SCC 231.

3. MalladaK.Sri Ram v. State of Telangana and others ,(2023) 13 SCC 537.

4. Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu and another ,2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) 341 (DB).

5. A.Kamala v.The State of Tamil Nadu & Others ,2024:MHC:3023.

6. A.Kamala v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)Nos.8706-8707 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024.

7. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. S.Indramoorthy, Crl.M.P.No.5340 of 2020 in Crl.M.P.No.3983 of 2020 in HCP.No.747 of 2020 dated 29.09.2020..

8. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 INSC 1288.

6. Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would defend the impugned order pointing out that there are a total of five adverse cases in which the detenu is involved and hence, the authorities have every justification in apprehending the detenu, as he is a threat to public safety and order. The incident on the basis of which the preventive detention was made falls squarely within the ambit of the charges framed