The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling, stating that even a single incident of sexual assault against a minor can be grounds for preventive detention under the stringent Goondas Act. The court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order passed against a man accused of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl in Thanjavur district.
Court Dismisses Challenge to Detention Order
The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima. They were reviewing a petition filed by a woman contesting the detention order issued against her brother by the Thanjavur District Collector. The collector had classified the man as a 'sexual offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, commonly known as the Goondas Act.
The man's arrest traces back to March 12, 2025, when the Thanjavur district police took him into custody. He was booked under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Subsequently, on April 17, 2025, the district collector invoked the Goondas Act to pass the preventive detention order against him.
Petitioner's Argument and Court's Firm Rejection
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the detaining authority had overstepped its jurisdiction. The primary contention was that the provisions of the Goondas Act could not be invoked for a solitary incident. It was further submitted that the alleged act of the detainee did not create an impact substantial enough to disturb public order in society.
The bench firmly rejected this argument. The judges observed that the detainee had committed a sexual offence against a young minor, an act they deemed a serious and heinous crime against society itself. Given the grave nature of the offence under the POCSO Act, the court held that even one such incident is sufficient to warrant preventive detention to protect the community.
Landmark Observation on Solitary Offences and Public Order
In its ruling, the Madras High Court made a pivotal observation that expands the interpretation of the Goondas Act in cases involving child sexual abuse. The bench clarified that the heinous nature of a crime against a child inherently affects public order and tranquility.
The court found no infirmity or illegality in the detention order passed by the collector. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed, upholding the state's use of the preventive detention law in this instance. This judgment underscores the judiciary's stern stance on crimes against children and affirms the applicability of stringent laws for even single, severe offences.
