MADURAI: Observing that a detention order can never be a substitute for addressing a situation that can be dealt with under the normal criminal law, and that such an order cannot be invoked in every murder case, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently cautioned the State government that it would impose costs if it finds detention orders being passed in a mechanical manner in the future.
A bench comprising Justices N Anand Venkatesh and P Dhanabal made these observations while setting aside a detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982 (the Goondas Act) against a 37-year-old man, M Rajesh Kumar, who was accused in a 2025 murder case arising out of a money dispute in Tiruchy.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by the man’s wife, R Vembu, challenging the detention order, the judges observed that authorities cannot resort to such preventive detention measures in every case of murder.
The bench noted that if a murder case has communal overtones, it may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, and could justify the issuance of a detention order. However, in the present case, the incident stemmed from a money dispute between the parties, leading to the alleged commission of murder.
“This incident by itself did not warrant the passing of a detention order, since it could have been dealt with under the normal criminal law that is available. A detention order can never be a substitute for handling a situation that can be dealt with under the normal criminal law,” the judges said.
While partly agreeing with the government counsel’s submission that a detention order can be passed even in a solitary case, the bench clarified that such a course would be justified only if that solitary incident is likely to affect the maintenance of public order and public peace.
“A detention order cannot be resorted to in every case involving murder,” the judges emphasised.
Though the court was initially inclined to impose costs on the authorities, it ultimately refrained from doing so and disposed of the case with a warning, taking note of the assurance given by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the issue would be immediately addressed with the government to ensure that detention orders are not passed mechanically in the future.