2026:MHC:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 259 of 2026 Ezhilarasi P W/o.Ponnusamy, No. 82, South Street, Silambur South, Silambur, Ariyalur - 608 901. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli. 5. The Inspector of Police Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District. ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No. 24/Goonda/Ariyalur /2025 dt. 26.11.2025 against the petitioner’s daughter the Detenue Panchaalai @ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 2 Kalaiyarasi, Aged 35 years, W/o.Jayakumar is now confined in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon’ble Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Rajkumar 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.M.Rajkumar, 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 mother of one Panchaalai @ Kalaiyarasi (detenue) W/o.Jayakumar, who was detained as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 26.11.2025. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenue was arrested on 25.10.2025 and she was detained on 26.11.2025. 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:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 3 813), 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 4 there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (25.10.2025) and order of detention (26.11.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction. 8. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.24/2025 dated 26.11.2025 is set aside. 9. The detenue, viz., Panchaalai @ Kalaiyarasi, W/o.Jayakumar, female aged 35 years, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 5 Tiruchirappalli. 5. The Inspector of Police Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur 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:2942 HCP No. 259 of 2026 __________ p. 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM HCP No. 259 of 2026 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis