Introduction
In the matter of C Kayalvizhi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Madras High Court considered whether a preventive-detention order under Tamil Nadu Goondas Act (Act 14 of 1982) was justified when the accused had committed a single sexual offence against a minor.
Facts Of The Case
The accused was arrested on March 12, 2025 under charges punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and additional relevant laws. He was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently detained on April 17, 2025. The detention came after a gap of 35 days. His sister, through a habeas corpus petition, challenged the detention on several grounds. She argued that a solitary incident should not qualify for preventive detention, that there was no proximate risk of bail, and that the order lacked proper application of mind. She also claimed denial of a translated copy of certain records relied upon by the detaining authority.
What the Court Held
The court, a bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima, rejected the petitioner’s arguments. The court observed that a sexual offence against an eight-year-old minor is a heinous crime against society. The bench held that such a crime is not merely personal but impacts societal order. Consequently, even a solitary incident of such sexual offence can justify a detention order under the Goondas Act. The court also found no fault with the timing of detention despite the 35-day lapse since arrest, noting that a reasonable explanation had been provided. Regarding the complaint of non-translated documents, the court clarified that the detaining authority did not rely on those records and that all pertinent details (including the victim’s address and injuries) were recorded in English, causing no prejudice to the detainee. The bench dismissed the habeas corpus petition as lacking merit and upheld the preventive detention order.
Implications
This ruling underscores that the Madras High Court regards sexual offences against minors as crimes against society, not just isolated acts between individuals. By upholding preventive detention based on a solitary incident, the Court signals a stricter approach to such offences, reinforcing public safety as a priority. The decision also clarifies that procedural delays in detention (if adequately explained) or technical objections (like document translation) will not automatically invalidate detention orders in grave child-sexual-offence cases. This could influence future detaining authorities to act promptly and justifiably when deciding on detention under the Goondas Act.
