Even A Solitary Heinous Sexual Offence Against A Minor Can Justify Preventive Detention: Madras High Court

The High Court held that such an act constitutes an offence against society and poses a threat to public order.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the sister of a detenu, who was detained as a “Sexual Offender” under Section 2(ggg) of Act 14 of 1982, challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur.

A Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima observed that “the detenu committed a sexual offence against a minor victim girl aged 8 Years, therefore, the detenu has committed an offence against society, and it is a serious and heinous one, hence, even a solitary incident can be considered for passing the detention order”.

Advocate G. Karuppsamay Pandiyan represented the petitioner, while T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the respondents.

Background

The detenu was arrested in a crime registered by the All Women Police Station, Vallam, for offences under Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He was remanded to custody and subsequently detained. The petitioner contended that there was a delay of 35 days between arrest and detention, breaking the live-link required for preventive detention.

The petitioner further submitted that the detention order relied upon an unrelated bail order in another case and alleged that a Tamil-only accident register was not properly translated to the detenu.

The respondents defended the detention, asserting the seriousness of the offence and the legality of the procedure followed.

Court’s Observation

The Madras High Court rejected the delay argument, noting that there is no statutory time limit prescribed under Act 14 of 1982 and that the explanation regarding administrative processing was satisfactory. It relied on the Judgment of the same Court in Susamma Baby v. Principal Secretary to Government (2023), holding that delay by itself is not fatal if properly justified.

The petitioner argued that the detention order was vitiated as the accident register relied upon by the detaining authority was in Tamil, while the detenu could not understand the language and that this amounted to non-supply of the relied-upon documents, causing prejudice and violating procedural safeguards.

The Court rejected this argument, noting that the injury details of the minor victim were recorded in English, and only the narration of the person who brought the child to the hospital was in Tamil, which was not relied upon for detention. Therefore, the Court held that no prejudice was caused to the detenu by the absence of a Tamil-to-English translation.

The Bench further underscored that the gravity of the alleged offence, sexual assault against an 8-year-old minor, has a direct bearing on public order and causes disturbance to society well beyond an individual dispute.

The Court also held that the detaining authority had applied its mind adequately, and the detention did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Conclusion

Finding no merit in the challenge, the High Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition and upheld the preventive detention order issued against the detenu as a “Sexual Offender” under Act 14 of 1982. All connected claims were disposed of.

Cause Title: C.K v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Advocate

Respondents: T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment