A detention order is invalid if there is an unexplained delay between the arrest of the detenu and the issuance of the order, as it snaps the 'live and proximate link' necessary to justify preventive detention.

PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 05.03.2026 in C3/D.O.No.15/2026 against petitioner’s father Selvam, S/o.Raj aged about 64 years who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Honourable Court and set him at Liberty.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Parthiban

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in C3/D.O.No.15/2026 dated 05.03.2026 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have perused the detention order passed by the detaining authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as the detenu was arrested on 31.01.2026 but the impugned detention order has been passed on 05.03.2026.

4. Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected /collated and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Government Advocate, is unacceptable.

5. In Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333] which arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the this matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. Hence, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in C3/D.O.No.15/2026 dated 05.03.2026 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Selvam, Son of Raj, aged about 64 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.