Even Solitary Incident Of Sexual Offence Against Minor Can Justify Preventive Detention ; Madras High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea Challenging “Sexual Offender” Detention Over Alleged POCSO Assault
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the sister of a detenu and upheld his preventive detention as a “Sexual Offender” under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court, dealing with allegations of sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl registered under the POCSO Act and related provisions, stated that sexual offences against minors are serious offences against society and that even a single incident may justify detention of the alleged offender. Rejecting the detenu’s plea that the authorities could not invoke preventive detention on the basis of one occurrence, the Bench held that there was no illegality or procedural defect in the detention order passed by the District Magistrate.
The petitioner, the sister of the detenu, challenged the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 17.04.2025, by which the detenu was termed a “Sexual Offender” under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petition sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to set aside the detention and release the detenu. The detenu had been arrested in Crime registered by the All-Women Police Station, Vallam, for offences under Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 87 of the BNS Act, 2023. He was remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2025 and subsequently detained under Act 14 of 1982 on 17.04.2025.
The petitioner contended that the 35-day gap between arrest and detention showed absence of a proximate link; that reliance on a bail order from an unrelated POCSO case was improper; and that no bail application was pending when the detention order was passed. It was further submitted that a Tamil-language accident register relied on by the detaining authority was not furnished in translated form. The respondents submitted that the timeline was duly explained, that delay did not vitiate detention, and that the accident register was not relied upon for the detention order.
The Bench recorded that the detention followed the arrest and remand of the detenu and noted the petitioner’s arguments on delay, bail materials and the accident register. The Court “perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority” and recorded the factual sequence relating to arrest, remand and detention.
On the issue of delay, the Court “recorded that though the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2025 and the detention order was passed on 17.04.2025, the remand extension report was submitted before the Government for detaining the detenu under Act 14 of 1982 on 19.04.2025 and it was approved by the Government on 28.04.2025 and placed before the Advisory Board on 15.05.2025.” The Bench stated that the judgment in Susamma Baby applied, quoting that “neither the Constitution nor Act 14 of 1982 prescribes a specific time limit to invoke the detention order” and that “delay in passing the detention order from the date of arrest is not ipso facto a ground to quash the detention order when the explanation offered by the detaining authority is acceptable and the delay is reasonable.”
Regarding the accident register, the Court stated that “though the detaining authority furnished a copy of the accident register to the detenu, it was not relied upon for passing the detention order.” It further observed that “the statement made by the person who brought the victim before the Doctor was recorded in Tamil. However, the address and details of the injuries sustained by the victim were recorded in English. Therefore, it would not cause any prejudice to the detenu.”
On the contention that a solitary incident cannot justify preventive detention, the Court stated that “the detenu committed a sexual offence against a minor victim girl aged 8 years” and “even a solitary incident can be considered for passing the detention order.” The Bench recorded that “the detenu has committed an offence against society, and it is a serious and heinous one.”
The Court directed that “we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent and this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppsamay Pandiyan
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Kayalvizhi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: H.C.P.(MD) No.593 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima
