Unexplained delays between arrest and detention orders can invalidate such orders under constitutional provisions.

COMMON ORDER (Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The petitioners have filed this petition assailing detention orders dated 17.05.2025. The dates of arrest in the three cases are on 17.06.2025 (HCP No.1672/25), 14.06.2025 (HCP No. 1673/25) and 16.06.2025 (HCP No. 1687/25).

2. We have sought from Mr.Muniyapparaj the justification for the delay at the end of the sponsoring authority, to have intimated the detaining authority about the need for detention. No reply or justification is forthcoming.

3. The records produced also do not contain any material that would even explain, let alone justify the gap of one month between date of arrest and the passing of the detention order. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura , reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', 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.”

4. In light of there being no justification having made out for the delay, the live and proximate link between the arrest and the detention, has snapped in the instant cases as well and the detention orders are liable to be quashed.

5. In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in B3/D.O.No.61/2025, B3/D.O.No.58/2025 & B3/D.O.No.59/2025 dated

15.07.2025, respectively are set aside.

6. The detenus, viz., (i) Prabhu, S/o. Raman, aged 29 years, (ii) Duraimurugan, S/o. Perumal, aged 25 years, and (iii) Madhavan, S/o.Venkatesan, aged 22 years, who are now confined in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, are hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other cases.