HCP/1415/2026 of Kokila A Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chi on 28 September 2026

Order

(Order of the Court was made by K.Rajasekar J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu B.T.Arasakumar @ Pudukkottai Thiyagarajan Arasakumar, S/o.Thiyagarajan, aged about 59 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 11.07.2026 bearing reference Memo in No.31/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. The brief facts, relied on by the detaining authority to detain the detenue are as follows:

a. A complaint dated 23.06.2026 was lodged against the detenue who is the Founder President, Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association (Unregistered) and others have cheating the complainant and others to the tune of Rs.100 crores under the pretext of arranging permanent recognition, upgradation, DTCP approval, etc. The complainant is running a private school in Dharmapuri and also the Secretary in the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Federation. On 30.12.2024, the detenu started an unregistered organisation in the name of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association at Kalaivanar Arangam, Chennai, claiming himself to be Founder President along with others, assured that they would arrange permanent approval, upgradation of Nursery and Primary Schools and DTCP approval for the schools that are running without the approval and collected money since the detenu was very close to Government Officials and politicians and he will solve the above issues and get approvals as required. To complete the above works, the detenu claimed that money has to be paid to the Government Officials and politicians and from 25.02.2025, he had collected more than Rs.100 crores from the private schools functioning in Tamil Nadu. When the same was not arranged, the private school managements questioned the detenue for which, he had threatened them that he will stop the functioning of the schools with the influence of politicians and officials.

b. On 29.04.2025, a private school had paid Rs.13 lakhs to the detenu through cheque in favour of B.T.K. Educational Development Trust. The above Trust was under the control of detenu. On 09.10.2025, the detenu had collected Rs.57,20,500/- and on 30.08.2025, Thiru. Muthukumar had collected Rs.30 lakhs towards membership fees from various private schools. Rs.2.45 lakhs was collected from 29 private schools towards membership fees. Sofar, the association was not registered and the accounts have not been audited and thus the detenu had cheated the private school functionaries. On 09.10.2025, the detenu convened a meeting at Dharmapuri amd collected Rs.50 lakhs, on 23.03.2025, convened a meeting at Vidya Mandir School, Rasipuram and collected Rs.72 lakhs and thus collected Rs.1.22 crores, for issuance of permanent approval and other permissions for the above schools. Likewise, management of the private schools in various districts of Tamil Nadu have also been cheated. Further, the complainant has also named various persons who are very close to the detenu and having control in the concerned department and accordingly a complaint was lodged.

c. The said complaint was registered by the Central Crime Branch-II, Greater Chennai Police in Crime No.64 of 2026 under Sections 316(5), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) on 27.06.2026.

d. Based on the investigation, the detenu was arrested on 27.06.2026 at about 12.00 hours, and his residence was also searched and various incriminating documents were also seized. Further statements of the detenu was recorded and various incriminating documents and materials have been collected. The detenu was also been remanded on 27.06.2026 and his remand was extended continuously.

e. On the basis of letter submitted by the Inspector of Police, police custody was also taken on 06.07.2026 and his remand period was extended till 27.06.2026. In the meantime, based on the sponsoring authority’s affidavit, the second respondent has passed the impugned detention order dated 11.07.2026, by branding him as “Goonda”, in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

f. Challenging the above detention order, the present habeus corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenue to quash the same. After issuing notice to the respondents, this petition was heard today.

3. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner though has raised several grounds, his major ground is that the detenu has sent representation on 23.07.2026 and the same has been disposed of on 05.08.2026

and, there is a delay of 13 days in considering the representation. He further submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority that the acts of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is misconceived and there is no violation of any public order. He has also drawn our attention to the concerned paragraph of the detention order and the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. He has also stated that there were no cogent material to record the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to satisfy himself that there is a compelling necessity to detaining him under the preventive detention and further reliance made on the possibility of coming out on bail is also not proper and the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction that there is a possibility of coming out on bail is not similar to the case of the detenu. He further raised grounds relating to delay in passing the detention order after the date of arrest, and also delay in placing the materials before the Advisory Board.

4. He has also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Nenavath Bujji and Others vs. State of Telungana and Others [2024 (17) SCC 294, in support of his contentions that, the acts of detenu does not fall within the ambit of term, ‘prejudicial to the public order’.

5. The learned State Public Prosecutor in reply, has submitted that the representation sent on behalf of the detenu dated 23.07.2026 was immediately forwarded to the Government on 27.07.2026, then the file was submitted for circulation on 30.07.2026 and the same was considered and rejected on 05.08.2026. Thereby, there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu and further the rejection order was also immediately communicated to the detenu. He further submitted that the detenu by making false promise and also by utilising his influence with the previous Government and the politicians, though in the FIR it has been stated that Rs.100 crores have been collected, now, the money trial reveals that it is more than Rs.100 crores and further complaints are also received from several school managements, who have been cheated. The detenu has created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the school managements, who approaches the association of the detenu. He further submitted that, the impact on public order depends upon the nature of the act, place where it was committed and a motive behind it. Hence, the act of the detenu is squarely falls to the ambit of the term ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. 5a. The learned State Public Prosecutor further submitted that the detaining authority has applied his mind with regard to the possibility of coming out on bail and based on the fact that the bail applications filed by the detenu was pending at the time of passing the order. The Reliance of the similar bail order is only an additional factor and since the order passed against the detenu is severable, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority based on the fact that the bail applications of the detenu is pending is satisfied to arrive subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there is compelling necessity to prevent the detenu from committing further acts. He further submitted that there was no delay in passing the detention order or placing the detenu’s case before the Advisory Board. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. We have anxiously considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the records.

7. Though several grounds have been raised by the detenu, we are of the view that considering the case in two grounds would serve the purpose since we are satisfied with two grounds raised by the detenu is sufficient to held that the detention order, passed against the detenu is vitiated.

8. The first ground raised by the detenu is delay in considering the representation by the Government. Admittedly, the detenu has sent a representation dated 23.07.2026, his representation was sent to the Government by the prison authorities on 27.07.2026. There was no dispute regarding the date of receipt of the representation by the Government as 27.07.2026. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the file for considering the representation was placed for circulation only on 30.07.2026. Then, the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary dealt with the file on 30.07.2026 and 31.07.2026 respectively.

Thereafter, it was not immediately placed for further circulation and after 5 days i.e., 05.08.2026 the file once again circulated and it was placed before the Minister on 05.08.2026 and rejection order was passed on 05.08.2026. This shows that there is a delay in circulating the files nearly 5 days from 31.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. The Government has also not able to provide any reasons for such delay and it is also noted another 3 days delay in placing the file for circulation i.e., from 27.07.2026 till 30.07.2026. The admitted facts stated above in the counter would reveal that there is a delay in considering the representation and we are of the view that the delay in considering the representation is a valid ground for setting aside the detention order and therefore, on this ground, the detention order passed by the detaining authority is vitiated.

9. With regard to the other contention that the acts of the detenu is not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it would be apposite to refer the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority.

10. In the detention order the detaining authority has recorded as follows: “Hence, I am satisfied that Thiru.B.T.Arasakumar @ Pudukkottai Thiyagarajan Arasukumar is committing offences has come to adverse notice and in the ground case, he along with his associates floated an unregistered association, falsely assured to redress the grievances being faced by private schools, collected money from various private schools all over the state and as assured they neither redress their grievances nor returned the money and cheated them and thus Thiru.B.T.Arasakumar @

Pudukkottai

Thiyagarajan Arasukumar has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a GOONDA as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]. By committing the above described grave crime of cheating the school managements for more than Rs.100 crores Thiru.B.T.Arasakumar @

Pudukkottai

Thiyagarajan Arasukumar had created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity not only in the minds of the school managements who approaches their association to represent their grievances to the Government and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”

11. On careful reading of the above paragraph reveals that the detaining authority has recorded that the act of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to substantiate the same, he further observed that by committing the above grave crime of cheating of school managements for more than Rs.100 crores, the detenu has created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the school managements who have approaches their association to represent their grievances to the Government. This observation of the detaining authority only shows that the act of the detenu had created feeling insecurity in the minds of the school managements, who approaches the association. The detaining authority further observed that the school managements have approached the association to represent their grievances to the Government but the detenu had collected money and cheated them.

12. The word ‘ prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ has been interpreted several times by the Apex Court and recently in Nenavath Bujji and Others vs. State of Telangana and Others [2024 (17) SCC 294] cited supra, while considering the meaning of the word ‘prejudicial to the public order’ observed in para 33 as follows: “33.The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression 'law and order' is wider in scope in as much as contravention of law always affects order, 'Public order' has a narrower ambit, and could be affected by only such contravention, which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and' public order' is one of degree and extent of the reach, of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and order only. In other words, the true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different. [See: Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda, (2004) 3 SCC75.]”

13. In this case, admittedly, it has been observed by the detaining authority that the victims are the school managements and it is also admitted fact that the school managements have voluntarily approached the association to redress their grievances. It is not the case that they have been threatened to meet him or any other illegal acts have been invoked to force any of the school managements to pay the money. The observation of the detaining authority itself is very patently clear that those who have approached the association for redressing their grievances have been cheated and in this regard already a criminal case has been registered in which the detenu is also been arrested and now he is in custody. If at all the money trial or other recovery of money is to be effected, the proper course for the prosecuting agency is to invoke various provisions of Procedure Code. The act of the detenu is no way affects the public at large or even tempo of life of the community. The victims herein are confined only to a few individuals directly involved, that too, by their voluntarily act. Hence, we are of the view that the act of the detenu is only falls within the definition of law and order issue and it does not fall within the definition of the prejudicial to the public order, and on this ground also the detention order passed by the detaining authority is vitiated. In view of the observation made above, this Court is of the view that the detention order is not valid and liable to be quashed.

14. In the result, the detention order passed by second respondent dated 11.07.2026 bearing reference Memo in No.317/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., B.T.Arasakumar @ Pudukkottai Thiyagarajan Arasukumar, Male, aged about 59 years, Son of Thiyagarajan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSI Note to Office: Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, forthwith. To:

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police, Beta VI, EDF-III, Central Crime Branch-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Red Hills Road, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. SSI HCP No. 1415 of 2026 AND CRL MP Nos. 16705 & 17651 OF 2026 28-09-2026