Andhra Pradesh Goondas Act | 12-Day Period For Govt Approval Begins After Detention Order Is Passed: High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the 12-day period for approval of a preventive detention order under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, 1986, begins from the day after the detention order is made, thereby excluding the date of the order...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the 12-day period for approval of a preventive detention order under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, 1986, begins from the day after the detention order is made, thereby excluding the date of the order from computation.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act confers the power to pass preventive detention orders and requires such orders to be approved by the Government within the prescribed period.
However, the Court ultimately set aside the detention order after finding that the Detaining Authority had failed to satisfy the “triple test”, having recorded satisfaction only regarding the detenue's custody but not the possibility of his release on bail and his likely involvement in prejudicial activity upon release.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi delivered the judgment. The Court observed:
“The language of Section 3(3) is very clear. The order shall not remain in force if it is not approved within the period of 12 days after the making of the order of detention. The expression 'after the making thereof', indicates that the period of 12 days is to be counted after the passing of the order of detention. So, it is clear that the date of the order of detention is to be excluded.
In the present case, the order of detention was passed on 19.09.2025. When counted from 20.09.2025, the order of approval is within the period of 12 days under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1986. The order of approval was therefore passed within 12 days. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the detenue is entitled to be released under Section 3(3) as the order of approval was passed after 12 days cannot be accepted and is rejected.”
The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the preventive detention order passed against the detenue under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) read with Section 2(b) of the 1986 Act. The detention order was subsequently approved by the State Government and confirmed for a period of twelve months.
The petitioner contended that the detention order had not been approved within the statutory period of twelve days. It was also contended that the detenue was already in judicial custody in four criminal cases and that the Detaining Authority had failed to record the requisite satisfaction regarding the possibility of his release on bail and his likely involvement in prejudicial activity thereafter.
Addressing the computation of the statutory period, the High Court held that the words “after the making thereof” in Section 3(3) require the date of the detention order to be excluded. Thus, the 12-day period commenced from the following day, making the Government's approval validly within time.
While the High Court rejected the challenge to the approval timeline, it found the detention order unsustainable on the issue of the detenue's judicial custody.
The Court noted that the “triple test” must be satisfied before preventive detention can be ordered against a person already in custody. The “triple test” entails satisfaction regarding the detenue's actual custody, a real possibility of his release on bail coupled with the likelihood of prejudicial activity upon release and the necessity of detention to prevent such activity. The Court found that only the first requirement had been satisfied in the present case.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention order as well as the order confirming the detention.
It directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, if he was not required in connection with any other case.
Case Title: Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 29553 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy
Counsel for Respondents: Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, Government Pleader