Madras HC Quashes Goondas Detention In Armstrong Murder Case | Says Authority Couldn't Have Scrutinised 1000 Pages And Passed 14 Orders In One Day
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, holding that it was passed without proper application of mind. The Court concluded that the detaining authority could not have reasonably examined approximately 1000 pages of material in a single day before issuing the detention order. As a result, the Court ordered the immediate release of the individual detained, unless required in connection with any other case.
The petitioner in the matter was the mother of the detenu, Mr. Pradeep, aged 29, who was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The detention order, dated 19.09.2024, had been issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
The detention was grounded in Crime No.293 of 2024 registered at the K-1 Sembium Police Station, in which it was alleged that Mr. Pradeep was part of an unlawful mob involved in the fatal attack on one Mr. Armstrong on 05.07.2024. Based on this incident, the detaining authority concluded that the detenu posed a threat to public order and public peace and thus categorized him as a "Goonda" under the Act.
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, primarily contending that the detention order was passed without proper scrutiny, as the grounds of detention spanned nearly 1000 pages and the proposal for detention was received and acted upon by the detaining authority on the same day, 19.09.2024.
The State contended through the learned Additional Advocate General that the proposal was in fact sent to the detaining authority on 16.09.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, thereby giving the authority adequate time for consideration. It was also submitted that since the detenu had not yet been granted bail by the Trial Court, quashing the detention order might influence the bail proceedings.
Upon examination of the records, the Court found that the proposal for detention had been made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Koyambedu Range, Chennai. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, was not the sponsoring authority in the case. The only material presented to support the earlier transmission date was a covering letter dated 16.09.2024 from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which lacked any acknowledgment or receipt by the detaining authority.
The standard protocol, as outlined in the detention proforma, indicated that the original proposal had been routed through hierarchical levels: it was sent from the sponsoring authority on 05.09.2024, received by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope, on 11.09.2024, then to the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, on 12.09.2024, and finally transmitted to the detaining authority only on 19.09.2024.
Based on this documented sequence, the Court held that the contention of the State regarding an earlier submission date could not be sustained. It was therefore evident that the detaining authority had received and acted on the proposal on the same date, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the due application of mind, especially considering the voluminous material.
The Bench noted "we have no second thoughts in coming to the conclusion that the proposal was received by the detaining authority on 19.09.2024 only and on the same day, the grounds of detention was prepared on the basis of the materials running to about 1000 pages."
Addressing the impossibility of the task, the Court stated, "we fail to understand as to how it would be humanly possible for the detaining authority to scrutinize about 1000 pages of materials, apply his mind on the antecedents on the detenu, satisfy himself that the detenu was in actual custody and thereafter arrive at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him that there was an imminent possibility of him being released on bail and if so, he would probably indulge in prejudicial activities."
The Court further recorded that "the detaining authority appears to have scrutinized approximately 14,000 pages on one single day and passed 14 detention orders, which is an impossible task for any human being."
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, the Bench observed that preventive detention, by its very nature, requires vigilant and careful scrutiny. It stated, "any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings."
On the issue of bail courts possibly treating quashing of detention orders as grounds for bail, the Court noted that "the standard or grounds for consideration of bail application is distinct from that of the grounds of consideration adopted by the High Court in interfering with the detention orders."
Referring to Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that the grant of bail should be considered on principles unique to bail jurisprudence, which involve factors such as the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence, severity of punishment, and other individual-specific considerations.
The Division Bench explicitly stated that the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 19.09.2024 in No.976/BCDFGISSSV/2024 stands quashed.
It directed that, "the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the detenu viz., Pradeep S/o.Thirunavukarasu aged about 29 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case."
The Court also made it clear that bail courts should not rely on its order to influence their decision-making. "We make it unambiguously clear that the Bail Court, in such cases, shall not give weightage to quashing of the detention order, as a ground for grant of bail. This observation shall hold good for the present case also."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Muthamizhselvakumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:1877
Case Number: H.C.P.No.2828 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
