Preventive detention cannot be utilized to suppress dissent or address individual criminal disputes. Invocation of such draconian power requires a demonstrable threat to public order and strict compliance with constitutional procedural safeguards including timely communication of arrest grounds and representation disposal.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

1.Under assail in the present Habeas Corpus Petition is the detention order dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City.

2. The husband of the petitioner has been clamped 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 14 of 1982”) and detained as “Sexual Offender”.

3. The present Habeas Corpus Petition came to be listed for admission on 26.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the husband of the petitioner is a Youtube journalist, more specifically investigative journalist, raises dissenting voices against the executives and politicians in the State of Tamil Nadu. He is running a Youtube channel. His personal liberty is curtailed by the police authorities with an ulterior motive to make him silent and thus, the matter is to be heard urgently.

4. This Court on 26.12.2025, recorded that “Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the respondents. Post on 30.12.2025. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to get instructions by then”.

5. The matter is taken up for hearing today i.e., 30.12.2025. On behalf of the State and by representing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appeared and raised preliminary objections that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable. Notice has not been issued to the respondents to file counter. Under Rule 24(2) of the Writ Rules of Madras High Court, eight weeks time should be given to the respondents to file counter. Therefore, sufficient time is to be granted to file counter in the present case.

6. This Court elaborately heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the petitioner at the first instance and gone through the records made available.

7. Since the personal liberty of a person is being curtailed, which is a fundamental right enunciated and ensured under the Constitution of India, any illegal detention cannot be allowed to go on, if it is found to be contrary to law or issued on extraneous consideration.

8. In the above backdrop and after hearing the parties, this Court examined the documents and passed the following orders.

9. The respondents detained the husband of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982 relying on 5 adverse cases and a ground case. Five Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.31418, 31419, 31425, 31426 & 31429/2024 had been instituted and the learned Single Judge of this Court passed a final order on 13.02.2025, transferring all 5 cases to CBCID Wing of the Police Department for investigation.

10. Ground case for detention has been registered in Crime No.280/2025 dated 28.11.2025. The said case was registered under Sections 74 , 79, 296(b) and 359(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002. Perusal of the First information Report would show that it is a landlord tenant dispute and the petitioner, her husband along with their family members are the tenants. The landlord asked th