An unexplained and inordinate delay between the date of arrest and the passing of a detention order snaps the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds and the purpose of detention, vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendering the order invalid.

Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ or Direction calling for the entir records connected with the detention order in Memo No.804/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.10.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and Quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the person of Petitioner husband one named Thiru. Kirubanandan S/o. Ponnan aged about 22 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.

For Petitioner(s): No appearance

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan

Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu

(criminal Side)

Order

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

There is no appearance for the petitioner and we have heard Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The mother of one Kirubanandan (detenu) S/o Ponnan, who was detained as a Drug Offender under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 17.10.2025.

3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 10.09.2025 and he was detained on 17.10.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention either in the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped.

4. In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813), a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows:

“21. 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. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arrest/date of proposal and the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground.

6. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428), this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, the delay is more than a month, 38 days to be exact, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

7. In light