2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2615 of 2025 Malar W/o. Palani, Avarai, Kunnur Post, Pethanaikkenpalayam, Salem District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector of Salem District, Salem. 3. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Attur. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Superintendent of Police Salem 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 Order in the nature of writ to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 10.11.2025 in C.M.P. No.23/Bootlegger/C2/2025 against the petitioner’s husband Palani, son of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ Kulanthai Gounder aged about 48 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon’ble court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Paarthiban 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.) We have heard Mr.V.Paarthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The wife of one Palani (detenu), S/o. Kulanthaigounder, who was detained as a ‘Bootlegger’ under Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 10.11.2025. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 10.10.2025 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) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ delay is more than a month, 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 (10.10.2025) 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 addition, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is really no subjective satisfaction at all for two reasons. Firstly, the bail application filed by the detenu has been dismissed on 25.10.2025. Admittedly, no bail application has been filed thereafter and hence there was no need for the authority to infer that there is danger of him being enlarge on bail. Such an apprehension is based on the statement of relatives. However, there is no statement that has been recorded from the relatives of the detenu and hence the same is mere ipse dixit. 9. That apart, in the detention order, the authority had referred to two arracks bottles that has been sent for chemical analysis. He refers to doctors opinion dated 25.10.2025. After analysis of the samples, that report is not placed as part of the booklet. This essentially thwarting the right to make an effective representation as against the same. 10. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (2011 [5] SCC 244), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ detention order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 11. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No. 23/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2025 dated 10.11.2025 is set aside. 12. The detenu, viz., Palani, S/o. Kulanthaigounder, male aged 48 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 13-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009, 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector of Salem District, Salem 3. The Inspector of Police Prohibition and enforcement wing, Attur 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, 5. The Superintendent of Police https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ Salem District. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2676 HCP No. 2615 of 2025 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM HCP No. 2615 of 2025 13-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis