HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.787 of 2026 Sevvanthi ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Theni District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed by the Respondent No.2 in No.71/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 29.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of her husband namely, Sha Hussain son of Jass Ali aged about 29 years, now confined at Theni District Prison, Theni, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Arif For Respondents: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Government Advocate(Crl.Side) O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Sha Hussain son of Jass Ali aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.71/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 29.11.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 27.10.2025, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 29.11.2025, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 counter and contended that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side), no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. 5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 27.10.2025 and the detention order was passed on 29.11.2025. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "20. 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." Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay is unreasonable and has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.71/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 29.11.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Sha Hussain son of Jass Ali aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 24.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To: 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Theni District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. 6. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. bala ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.787 of 2026 DATED : 24.07.2026 Page No.8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis