Fidha Fathima v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Mr.A.Saranraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The wife of one N.Edisan (detenu) S/o Nelsan, 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 29.09.2025.

¶3It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 27.08.2025 and he was detained on 29.09.2025. 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. Page3 of 8

¶4In 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."

¶5Drawing 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.

¶6In 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 Page4 of 8 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.

¶7In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (27.08.2025) and order of detention (29.09.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction.

¶8Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.No.160/G/IS/2025 dated 25.09.2025 is set aside.

¶9The detenu, viz., N.Edisan, S/o.Nelsan, male aged 21 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.) 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order SL Note: Issue today. Page5 of 8 To

¶1The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶2Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶3The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶4State Rep by The Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶6The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and Order) Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. HCPoNo.o2620oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SL HCPoNo.o2620oofo2025 08-06-2026 Page6oofo8 Page7 of 8 H.C.P.No.2620 of 2025

Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN

, J.

(Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.) In light of memo dated 10.06.2026, the date of detention wherever it appears in order dated 08.06.2026 be amended to 29.09.2025 instead of

25.09.2025.

¶2Except the aforesaid change, order dated 08.06.2026 remains unaltered. [A.S.M, J.] [S.M, J.]

12.06.2026 sl

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Fidha Fathima W/o, Edisan, No.2,Elango Nagar, Avarampalayam, Coimbatore District ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2. Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. State Rep by The Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District. ..Respondent(s) PETITION filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other Writ or order in the nature of Writ call for the records in Connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 25.09.2025 in C.No.160/G/IS/2025 against the petitioner husband N.EDISAN, M/21 Years, son of Nelsan, who is confined at central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the Page2 of 8 same and consequently direct the Respondents to produce the detenue before the Honble Court and set him at Liberty and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): A.Saranraj For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R. Malarvannan. Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)