An unexplained one-month delay between arrest and detention order snaps the live and proximate link.

The petitioner, Senthurvelan @ Susimaran, was detained as a “Sexual Offender” under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order dated 23 February 2026.

He had been arrested in the ground case on 22 January 2026, and challenged the detention order by habeas corpus petition under Article 226, principally alleging an unexplained delay of about one month between his arrest and the detention order.

The State contended that the delay resulted from collecting details and had caused no prejudice.

Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the relevant classification under which the detenu was detained.

In reviewing the detention under Article 226, the Court applied the principle in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333: an unreasonable delay that is not satisfactorily explained may cast doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and snap the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the order invalid; whether delay is unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The detenu was arrested on 22 January 2026, but the detention order was made only on 23 February 2026.

Although the State attributed the delay to the collection of details, the Court found that the grounds of detention disclosed no adverse case and that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained.

Applying the Sushanta Kumar Banik principle, the Court held that the delay snapped the live and proximate link between the arrest and the need for preventive detention, vitiating the order.

It set aside the detention order dated 23 February 2026 and directed that the detenu be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with another case.