Armstrong Murder Case: Madras High Court Quashes Detention Of Accused Under Goondas Act, Says Scrutiny Of 14K Pages In A Day Impossible

While setting aside the detention order, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the detaining authority, while passing the detention orders, appeared to have scrutinised 14,000 pages in a day, which was an impossible task for any human being. The court thus observed that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, while passing the detention order.

“In other words, 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. Not to mention that the detaining authority, in the rank of a Commissioner of Police, did not undertake any official or other administrative work on the said day. In the light of these observations, we are constrained to hold that the detaining authority had not applied his mind, while passing the grounds of detention and the detention order,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the detention of 14 persons who were accused in the murder of Armstrong. The petitioners were labelled as “Goondas” and detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act 1982. The main ground raised while challenging the detention orders was that the grounds of detention was based on materials running to 1000 pages. It was submitted that the Sponsoring Authority had sent the proposal on September 19, 2024, to the detaining authority, and the detention order was passed on the very same day, which was not humanly possible.

Though the Additional Advocate General submitted that the proposal was sent on September 16, 2024, the court, on perusing the papers, noted that it was sent on September 19 itself and not as claimed by the AAG. The court noted that what the AAG had produced was only a letter of proposal from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, for passing a detention order, which was not the sponsoring authority in this case.

Since no materials had been produced to show that the documents were sent to the detaining authority sufficiently in advance, the court concluded that the materials were sent on September 19,2024 and the detaining authority had passed the detention order on the same day.

The court observed that the object of preventive detention was not to punish him for doing an act but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing so. The court added that while the detaining authority had to remain vigilant, it could not turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest. The court added that the indifferent attitude of the detaining authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and can turn the detention order into a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings.

The court observed that while passing the orders, the detaining authority has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him that there was an imminent possibility that he would indulge in prejudicial activities if released on bail.

In the present case, the court held that the detaining authority had not applied his mind while passing the grounds of detention and the detention order.

When the AAG raised an apprehension that the Bail Courts tend to grant bail to accused whose detention orders were quashed by the High Court, the court made it clear that the principles governing grant of bail are distinct and different from the considerations adopted by the High Court in quashing preventive detention orders. The court emphasised that the Bail Court should not place reliance on the order quashing detention orders.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Muthamizhselvakumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267

Case No: H.C.P.No.2828 of 2024