Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pavithra R, the elder sister of the detenu Ajith Kumar, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. The petition challenged the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1101/2024 dated 05.11.2024, under which the detenu was confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. The sole ground raised in the petition was that the detenu was arrested on 15.09.2024, but the impugned detention order was issued on 05.11.2024, after a lapse of more than one month (51 days). The petitioner argued that this unexplained delay vitiated the detention order. The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not offer any explanation for the delay. The court considered the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813, which held that unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention and actual arrest, unless satisfactorily explained, throws doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and snaps the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. The court also referred to T.A. Abdul Rahaman v. State of Kerala, (1989) 4 SCC 741, which summarised the principle that the prejudicial activities must be proximate to the time of the order. Applying these principles, the court found that the delay of 51 days was unexplained and therefore the detention order was bad and invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Delay in Passing Detention Order - Live and Proximate Link - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - The detenu was arrested on 15.09.2024 and the detention order was passed on 05.11.2024, a delay of 51 days. The detaining authority failed to explain the delay. Relying on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura and T.A. Abdul Rahaman v. State of Kerala, the court held that such unexplained delay snaps the live link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the detention order invalid. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the unexplained delay of 51 days between the arrest of the detenu and the passing of the detention order vitiates the order of detention.
Final Decision
The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1101/2024 dated 05.11.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, Ajith Kumar, S/o. Guna, aged 27 years, at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- delay in passing detention order
- live and proximate link
- subjective satisfaction
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
