The Madras High Court is currently reviewing a petition challenging the detention of Gnanasekar, who stands accused in a sexual assault case at Anna University. The detention was executed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, commonly known as the Goondas Act of 1982. The petition has been filed by Gnanasekar's mother, Gengadevi, who contends that the detention order is both unlawful and a misuse of administrative power.
The incident in question occurred in December 2024, when Gnanasekar was accused of sexually assaulting a second-year engineering student on the campus of Anna University in Chennai. The case attracted significant public attention, leading the High Court to establish a Special Investigation Team (SIT) after identifying deficiencies in the initial police investigation. Subsequently, on January 5, 2025, the Commissioner of Police issued a detention order against Gnanasekar, categorizing him as a "sexual offender" whose actions were deemed detrimental to public peace and order. He has since been held at the Central Prison in Chennai.
In her petition, Gengadevi argues that the detention order represents a malicious abuse of power. She asserts that her son has not engaged in any activities that would disrupt public peace or order. Furthermore, she challenges the characterization of Gnanasekar as a habitual offender, noting the absence of substantial evidence to support such a claim. She contends that the detaining authority overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act when issuing the detention order.
A critical point in the petition is the alleged lack of a direct or immediate connection between the incidents cited and the detention order. Gengadevi highlights that two of the prior cases referenced date back to 2019, suggesting that they are too dated to justify current detention. She further alleges that the third case was fabricated with the intent to ensure her son's continued incarceration. This, she argues, constitutes a violation of Gnanasekar's fundamental rights as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The petition also criticizes the procedural aspects of the detention order, describing it as a mechanical and unjustified exercise of authority aimed at personal vendetta, thereby constituting a serious misuse of power. Gengadevi claims that the detaining authority failed to review all pertinent documents and that the Sponsoring Authority did not present all essential materials necessary for an informed and subjective decision. Based on these assertions, she is seeking the annulment of the detention order, labeling it as illegal and improper.
In response to the petition, a bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N. Senthilkumar has directed the state to provide a formal reply. The court's decision in this matter is poised to have significant implications, particularly concerning the application of the Goondas Act in cases involving allegations of sexual offenses. The outcome may also influence the broader discourse on the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding individual rights within the legal framework.
As the case progresses, it continues to draw public and legal scrutiny, serving as a focal point for discussions on administrative authority, individual rights, and the mechanisms employed to address serious criminal allegations within educational institutions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.