HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2592 of 2025 Vasanthi D/o. Sekar, No.54, Kasipuram A Block 4th Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Complex, Chennai-600 009 2. The Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai-600 007. 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 4. The Inspector of Police N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai District. ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ or a direction, calling for the records relating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ to the detention order No.922/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.11.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent to the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce them Priyadharshini, Aged 24 years, W/o. Kamalraj who is presently confined in the Special Prison of women, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set her at liberty and pass such further or other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the facts and Circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Santhosh For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.) The aunt of the detenue viz., Priyadharshini, W/o Kamalraj, aged 24 years, who has been branded as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act), has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging detention order dated 10.11.2025. 2. We have heard Mr.P.Santhosh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenue was arrested on 06.10.2025 and he was detained on 10.11.2025. 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 2nd 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ 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, 36 days to be exact, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (06.10.2025) and order of detention (10.11.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction. 8. In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.922/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 10.11.2025 is set aside. 9. The detenue, viz., Priyadharshini, W/o Kamalraj, aged 24 years, confined in Special Prison of Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M, J.) (S.M, J.) 10-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To 1. ThePrincipal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Complex, Chennai-600 009 2. The Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai-600 007. 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 4. The Inspector of Police N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai District. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2592 of 2025 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM HCP No. 2592 of 2025 10-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis