Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Accused In Anna University Sexual Assault Case

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman was inclined to quash the detention order after noting that Gnansekaran was already convicted and sentenced in connection with the sexual assault case. The court thus disposed of a habeas corpus plea by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi.

Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a 2nd year engineering student at the Anna University campus in Chennai in December 2024. The High Court had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident after finding faults in the state police's investigation. On June 2, Gnansekaran was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum 30 years and a fine of Rs 90,000.

By an order of the Commissioner of Police on January 5, 2025, Gnanasekar was detained, stating that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order. He was termed as a “sexual offender” and detained in the Central Prison, Chennai.

Gengadevi, in her plea, stated that the detention order was a misuse of power and was passed with a malafide intention. It was submitted that Gnanasekar had not indulged in any illegal activities and never acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace, tranquillity, and public order. She submitted that the detaining authority had no material to show that Gnanasekar was a habitual offender, and therefore, the detention was unlawful. She submitted that the detaining authority has no power to pass the order under Section 3(1) of the Act and exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the detention order against Gnanasekar.

It was submitted that the detaining authority failed to consider that there was no proximate or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of detention. She pointed out that the two adverse cases related to the year 2019 and were very old cases while the third case was purposely created with an intention to detain him in jail. Thus, she submitted that the detention order was passed in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It was further submitted that the order was passed mechanically and there was an unjustified exercise of power to wreck vengeance which was a serious misuse of power. She added that the detaining authority had not perused all material documents and the Sponsoring Authority had not placed all materials and vital documents before the detaining for subjective satisfaction. Thus, she called for quashing the detention order for being illegal and improper.

Case Title: Gengadevi v. The Secretary To The Government And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 484

Case No: HCP No. 382 of 2025