Madras High Court Quashes YouTuber Varaaki's Preventive Detention, Imposes ₹50K Costs On State For 'Targeting' Him

In doing so, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan also directed the state to pay Rs. 50,000 to him for his illegal detention.

“In view of the detailed discussion supra, we are left in no doubt that the detenu has been unnecessarily targeted by the State and for this reason, while allowing this HCP, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to the detenu within a period of four (4) weeks from today,” the court said.

It may be noted that in December 2025, the court had released Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, on personal bond. During that time, the court had remarked that the state should not routinely approve the detention orders and that while detaining a person, there should be application of mind. The bench had also remarked that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue State for appropriate relief including claiming damages.

The orders were passed on a habeas corpus petition filed by Neelima, wife of Varaaki, challenging the detention order passed by the State branding him as a Sexual Offender under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act {Tamil Nadu Goondas Act).

The petitioner had challenged the detention order, arguing that the same was bad in law and contrary to the Act, passed in excess of jurisdiction conferred on the detaining authority. It was submitted that there was no justification in branding Varaaki as a sexual offender and that the charges against him under BNSS And the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of the Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act 2002 was wholly unjustified.

It was submitted that the grounds of arrest were not served to the detenue at the time of his arrest, and were supplied to him only after he was produced before the Magistrate. it was argued that there was delay in dispatching and disposing Varaaki's representation, which was in violation of the statutory provisions.

Justifying the detention, the State argued that there was a total of 5 adverse cases against Varaaki and since he was a threat to public safety and order, he was rightly detained. It was submitted that the sponsoring and detaining authorities had considered that Varaaki's family was trying to enlarge him on bail and similar instances where bail was granted to him. Thus, it was argued that there were no merits in the grounds raised in the petition and the same was liable to be dismissed.

On going through the facts of the ground case based on which the detention order was passed, the court noted that the case was based on a landlord-tenant dispute. Though it was argued that the alleged crime was caught on CCTV camera, on going through the photographs, the court noted that the original complainant was not present at the alleged time of offence. Thus, the court observed that the very incident based on which the detention order was passed, had become moot.

Another issue that was considered by the court was whether the alleged incident constitutes a threat to public order. The court noted that even as per the prosecution version, the incident had not taken place in the public and the public was not privy to the alleged incident. Thus, the court noted that the condition precedent for invoking the Preventive Detention Act failed.

“The grounds laid out in the present case also, are only in general terms, and do not indicate any prejudice to public order. Thus, in our considered view, the mere statements of the authority to the effect that public order would be violated sans any material to support the same, is mere ipse dixit unsustainable in law,” the court said.

The court also agreed with the petitioner and noted that there was a delay in supplying the grounds of arrest since the grounds of arrest were supplied by the Magistrate when he was produced for remand proceedings.

Thus, noting that the detention was not proper, the court allowed the plea and ordered Varaaki to be set at liberty unless his presence was required in connection with any other case.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Arun Anbumani For Mr. P. Rajkumar

Counsel for respondents: Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. M. Sylvester John

Case Title: Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

Case NO: H.C.P.No.2714 of 2025