WP CRL./1207/2026 of D.Prabagaran Vs Union of India on 1 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by K. Rajasekar J.) This Writ Petition filed to call for the records from the 3rd respondent dated 27.04.2026 in detention order No.6051/DM/B3/PPASAA/2026 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition is as follows: 2.1 The writ petitioner herein was arrested in Crime No.273 of 2015 on the file of the Sembanarkovil Police Station, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu for the offences under Sections 61(2), 126(2), 324(4), 103(2), 351(3) of BNS on the ground that he has instigated other accused to commit murder of one Manimaran. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. Based on the involvement of accused in criminal case, and also his adverse history, the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai passed a detention order by terming the petitioner as “Goonda”, by invoking powers under Section 2(f) of the Tamil

Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), as per the order dated 06.08.2025. While the petitioner was under the preventive detention, he challenged the detention order through his mother by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.1804 of 2025 before the High Court. Based on various grounds raised, this Court vide order dated 04.03.2026, quashed the detention order passed against the petitioner and set him at liberty. 2.2 After the petitioner was released on bail, he was residing in his residence at Karaikal, and it is alleged that he had been continuously harassed by the 5th respondent - police and demanded to go out of his place of residence to some other districts or neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu, hence the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.8021 of 2026 before the High Court, seeking prevention of harassment from the police. While so on 05.05.2026, the officials of the 5th respondent herein had pasted a detention order in the petitioner’s house, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is ordered to be detained as ‘Dangerous Person’ by the 3rd respondent herein on 27.04.2026, by invoking powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti- Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No.10 of 2010). 2.3 It is further stated by the petitioner that he was very well available in his residence, however the officials of the 5th respondent had not served any copy to the petitioner. He further stated that in the detention order, the detaining authority had relied on two adverse cases and also the preventive detention order passed by the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai for the purpose of detaining him for one year. The earlier order of preventive detention dated 06.08.2025 was quashed by this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2026, observing that the detention order passed against the petitioner is illegal. Based on the very same grounds, the present impugned detention order dated 27.04.2026 has been passed by the District Magistrate Cum Authorized Officer, Karaikal/ 3rd respondent herein, for wrong purpose. 2.4 It is further stated by the petitioner that subsequent to his release from the prison, the subsequent detention order dated 27.04.2026 was passed by the 3rd respondent herein without any new grounds is illegal and the same has been passed. The Detaining Authority has exercised his powers and passed an order, which is not preventive, but punitive in nature. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 is vitiated, hence the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, at the pre-execution stage of the order.

3. The 4th respondent herein alone has filed counter before this Court, which was adopted by the 5th respondent, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner herein was noted for some adverse cases, which includes a murder case in Crime No.273 of 2025, a hurt case in Crime No.117 of 2019 and also a case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 in Crime No.1 of 2022. The petitioner has also involved in land dispute and 145(i) Cr.P.C. proceedings were also initiated in IR.No.24 of 2023. Apart from that there was an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Karaikal by invoking powers under Section 163 BNSS in IR No.41 of 2026, restraining the petitioner’s entry into the Karaikal region for a period of two months. The petitioner came to adverse notice on the basis of the petition/ requisition submitted by the 4th respondent herein and thus, the 3rd respondent herein/ The District Magistrate Cum Authorised Officer, Karaikal has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 and the same is based on subjective satisfaction arrived by the Detaining Authority to the fact that there is compelling necessity to detain the petitioner to prevent him from committing anti-social activities and from indulging in any other unlawful activities that are detrimental to public peace and tranquillity, and are likely to create fear, panic, and public disorder in society. It is further stated that the police have recorded entry in General Diary, vide SI.No.90, dated 21.03.2026 on the Thirunallar Police Station, that the petitioner has planned to commit another murder and there is also rivalry with the opposing group. Based on the General Diary entry and the past activities of the petitioner, the present detention order has been passed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a clear case of misusing the powers and the impugned order passed herein is punitive in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner, who had earlier detained under the Preventive Detention Act, in respect of detention order dated 06.08.2025, subsequent to his release, based on the High Court’s order dated 04.03.2026, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the neighbouring Collector of the Union Territory of Puducherry had passed another detention order based on the very same grounds as relied on by the detaining authority in the earlier detention order. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on wrong purpose, for preventing the petitioner from staying in his district. He also stated that there is already a ban order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Karaikal in IR No.41 of 2026, preventing the petitioner from entering into the Karaikal region for a period of two months. While so, the impugned order has been passed on wrong purpose only to harass the petitioner herein and prays to set aside the impugned order. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia [1992 Supp 1 SCC 496], to buttress his argument.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 submitted that, since the petitioner has been detained on the basis of fresh grounds, particularly the General Diary entry made in the Thirunallar Police Station regarding the information that there is a plan for retaliation and possibility of clash between two gangs, the present impugned order has been passed and the same is valid. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) also produced the copy of the detention order dated and the past records relating to passing of the said detention order dated 27.04.2026 along with the counter filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. He further submitted that though certain past adverse circumstances have been relied on, those circumstances are only indicating the adverse character of the petitioner herein and after considering all the above facts, the detaining authority had passed the detention order. Hence, he prays to dismiss this petition.

6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Th present writ petition is filed pre-execution stage of detention and the grounds on which the Court can interfere at the pre-execution stage with the detention orders has been settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia [1992 Supp 1 SCC 496] and the grounds can be raised are as follows: “(i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed,

(ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person,

(iii) that it. is passed for a wrong purpose,

(iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, or

(v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.”

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kimti Lal Sethi vs Lt. Governor Of National Capital (AIR 1996 SC 3341), has held as when the first detention order was quashed by the High Court, the subsequent detention order based on the very same facts and, in any case the second detention order is nullity in law and cannot be sustained. Apex Court is of the view that, after High Court quashing the earlier detention order, passing another detention order without new grounds, would be a punitive in nature and not a preventive action. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as follows: “13. For the view which we are taking, it is not necessary to consider whether the aforesaid observation was justified or not because the second detention order which has been challenged in the writ petition in this Court is liable to be quashed for the under-mentioned reasons.

14. The first detention order was passed in September, 1992 requiring the petitioner to be detained for a period of one year. He was detained on 18.1.1994 but after the said detention order was quashed, he was released on 23.11.1994. The petitioner had, by then, been in detention for a period of more than 10 months. The passing of the new detention order on 25.4.1995 only for a period of one month & twenty five days clearly shows that the intention was to see that the petitioner remained under preventive detention for a total period of one year, which was a period in respect of which the first detention order had been passed. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the fresh order of detention appears to be punitive in nature and has not been passed in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging in prejudicial activities in future. Where the detention takes the character of punitive rather than preventive action, the said order can be quashed as was done in the case of Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, . In the present case also, the passing of a fresh detention order on 25.4.1995, relating to the incident which had occurred in 1992, and for a period of only one month and twenty five days clearly appears to be punitive in nature and is, therefore, vitiated.”

9. In this petition, the petitioner herein at the time of filing this petition, produced the copy of the detention order and stated in his affidavit that this detention order was pasted in his house and we have compared the same with the detention order produced by the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) before this Court and both are one and the same.

10. On perusal of the impugned detention order dated 27.04.2026 passed against the petitioner herein, the detaining authority/ 3rd respondent while arriving his subjective satisfaction of detaining the petitioner has taken note of the past adverse character of the petitioner by relying on the following adverse cases and incidents as stated in paragraph No.9 of the detention order as follows:

9.1. The Detaining Authority has referred about a murder case taken place on 04.07.2025 and also observed that the case is pending trial in S.C.No.30 of 2026 on the file of the District-Cum-Sessions Court at Mayiladuthurai.

9.2. The Detaining Authority has referred about the case registered in the year 2019 in Crime No.117 of 2019 for the offences under Section 448, 324, 323, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC on the file of the Thirunallar Police Station, which is pending trial in C.C.No.750 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal.

9.3. The Detaining Authority has referred a case registered in the year 2022 in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 3(1),

(f) , (g), (r), (s) of SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and 109, 427, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC on PCR Cell Karaikal and this case is also pending trial in S.C.No.15 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -II Court, Karikal.

9.4. The Detaining Authority has referred to Land dispute proceedings under 145 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in IR.No.24 of 2023 and the matter was disposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal, vide order dated 20.01.2024.

9.5. The Detaining Authority has referred to the Ban of entry of the petitioner herein by invoking Section 163 BNSS passed in IR. No.41 of 2026, vide order dated 07.03.2026, thereby the petitioner herein was banned to enter into the Karaikal region for a period of two months. 9.6 The Detaining Authority has referred to the preventive action taken by the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai against the petitioner from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace, vide detention order dated 06.08.2025 in C.O.C. No.35 of 2025.

11. The detaining authority, after referring the above three criminal cases, three incidents and the orders passed therein in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 in the detention order, has recorded his subjective satisfaction as follows: “17. On perusal of the records submitted by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police (North), Karikal, as well as all documents, materials, FIRs, field report and Confession Statements related to the aforesaid cases, it is observed that the counter petitioner is involved in heinous crimes, including murder, which endangers both life and property.

18. From the above, it is evident that his activities – such as habitually committing, attempting to commit, or abetting the commission of various offences including murder, causing hurt, and offences against the human body and property, disturbance of public tranquillity – squarely falls within the definition of “Anti-Social Activities” as provided under Section 2(a) of the Puducherry

Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2010).

19. At this juncture, as the counter petitioner’s criminal involvement in the abetment/ conspiracy is under investigation/ pending trial and yet be decided, after considering all the facts and documents and his involvement in Anti-Social Activities, I am satisfied that the counter petitioner Prbagaran is a “Dangerous Person” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No.10 of 2010). It appears from the information laid out by the Petitioner and the materials produced before me that above said Prabagaran with his clandestine anti-social activities had acted in a manner causing alarm and a feeling of fear, panic and insecurity in the minds of the public living in that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public peace and Public order.”

12. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 shows that he has relied on the materials concerned with three criminal cases and three other orders passed by the authorities. Though it is stated by the detaining authority that, the petitioner herein is likely to involve in retaliation act against the other gang and he acted in the manner causing alarm, feeling of fear, panic and insecurity in the minds of the public living in that area, but no new grounds were found while comparing with the previous detention order passed by the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai dated 06.08.2025.

13. The order of the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai dated 06.08.2025 shows that the detention order is subject to approval of the Government and the Government had approved the same, subject to the approval of the Advisory Board. Subsequently, the Advisory Board has also approved the same and accordingly, the petitioner was detained for a period of one year. The Sponsoring Authority in his requisition, for placing the petitioner under preventive detention for the second time, has not stated or indicated about quashing of the previous detention order passed by the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai, confirmed by Government of Tamil Nadu. The impugned order passed by the detaining authority in this case reveals that he was aware about quashing of the previous detention order and also the fact that the petitioner was released from the prison. Without any involvement of the petitioner in any new criminal cases and also without any new grounds, the detaining authority had passed the subsequent detention order.

14. Admittedly, within three days from quashing of the detention order dated 06.08.2025 by the High Court’s order dated 04.03.2026, the order of ban of entry of the petitioner into the Karaikal region for a period of two months has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Karaikal on 07.03.2026. The said ban order has also been relied on by the detaining authority herein, however the other adverse circumstances relied on by the detaining authority were taken place before 2025, which are subject matter of first detention order. This Court finds that the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai, while passing the detention order on 06.08.2025 has considered the very same adverse cases, now relied on by the detaining authority in the present impugned order. After quashing of the detention order by the High Court, immediately yet another order under Preventive detention by invoking the very same powers by the District Magistrate Cum Authorized Officer, Karaikal, recorded his satisfaction, and after passing of the order of banning entry of the petitioner into the Karaikal District.

15. This Court finds that, since the petitioner herein succeeded in challenge of the first detention order, the present detention order passed by the authorities needs to be based on valid grounds to fulfil the object of the Preventive Detention Law. The detaining authority herein is not able to defend the allegations levelled by the petitioner herein that, the detention order has been passed for wrong purpose of preventing the detenu from entering into the District of Karaikal and for detaining him to achieve the object of the Act 10 of 2010. The impugned order is passed, after passing the order of ban of entry and after preventing the petitioner from entering into the Karaikal region for a period of two months from 07.03.2026, within short time and even before lapse of two months, during the ban is in force, also supports the case of the petitioner that, the impugned order is passed for wrong purpose and based on irrelevant grounds.

16. Similarly adverse cases and incidents relied by the detaining authority were also very stale in nature and are related to the year 2019, 2022

and 2025, respectively. This Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the 3rd respondent herein is not for preventive action, but it has to be considered only as punitive in nature and passed only for wrong purpose, hence we are inclined to set aside the same.

17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No stn

To

1. Union of India Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Secretary to Govt. of Puducherry, Union of Puducherry, Chief Secretary, Puducherry.

3. The District Magistrate Cum Authorized Officer, Karaikal.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Karaikal, Puducherry.

5. The Inspector of Police, Thirunallaru Police Station, Karaikal, Puducherry.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K. RAJASEKAR, J. stn W.P. Crl. No. 1207 of 2026 and W.M.P. Crl. No.400 of 2026 01-10-2026