A significant delay between arrest and detention order invalidates the detention under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, disrupting the live link between grounds of detention and purpose.

The wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order dated

23.07.2025 passed against her husband who had been branded as Sexual Offender under section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short ‘Act’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of detention has to be quashed on the ground that there is a delay between the date of arrest and the order of detention and hence the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped and submitted that the point is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura , reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813'

3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra), has held as follows:-

“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.”

5. The above observations would squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the detenu was arrested on 19.06.2025 and the detention order was passed on 23.07.2025. The delay has not been explained in any manner. Therefore, the live and proximate link between the order of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped and the detention order is liable to be quashed.

6. In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O./96/2025, dated 23.07.2025 is hereby set aside.

7. The detenu, viz., Jeeva, S/o. Venkatesan, aged 25 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.