Advisory Board's Opinion Not Condition Precedent For Arrest Pursuant To Preventive Detention Order: AP High Court

Obtaining an Advisory Board's opinion is not a condition precedent for arresting/detaining a person pursuant to a prevention detention order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held while clarifying that the Board's report is required for the State Government to decide whether to confirm or revoke the detention order. 

The Division Bench presided over by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta delivered the judgment. The court observed:

“The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order of the detaining authority, the arrest cannot be made immediately and it should be only after the opinion of the Advisory Board. For such submission, neither any provision has been placed before us nor any authority of law.

None of the provisions make the report of the Advisory Board, a condition precedent for making arrest of the detenu with respect to whom the order of detention has been passed or to be detained pursuant to the order of detention. The report of the Advisory Board, is must for the State Government to consider the confirmation of the order of detention, or to release depending on the report of the Advisory Board.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the mother of the detenu, challenging the detention order passed against him under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 ('1986 Act'), as well as the subsequent confirmation of the detention.

The petitioner contended that her son was already in judicial custody and that his arrest pursuant to the preventive detention order could not be made before the Advisory Board had rendered its opinion. It was argued that such opinion was a pre-condition for his arrest or transfer from one prison to another pursuant to the detention order.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that neither the provisions of the 1986 Act nor any authority placed before it made the Advisory Board's opinion a pre-condition for arrest pursuant to a detention order. The Court explained that Sections 10 and 11 deal with reference to and procedure before the Advisory Board, while Section 12 provides for the action to be taken on its report.

While rejecting the petitioner's contention, the Court nevertheless underscored the importance of the Advisory Board in preventing arbitrary preventive detention. It observed that its role is “no doubt of importance” in putting a check on the capricious exercise of detention powers and ensuring that illegal detentions are “nipped in the bud”.

However, in the present case, there was no material to show that the detention order had been passed mechanically or routinely.

The Court further noted that the detenu was afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order, but no representation was filed. He was also heard by the Advisory Board through virtual mode.

The petitioner had also challenged the detenu's transfer from Nellore to Kadapa Central Prison. The Court rejected the contention after finding that the transfer had been carried out following due procedure.

Finding no illegality in the detention and confirmation orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It, however, left the detenu at liberty to file a representation as may be permissible under law, if he so chooses and is so advised.

Case Title: Smt. Sivakumar Meenakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 6381 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Surendra ReddyCounsel for Respondents: Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Government Pleader.

Click Here To Read/Download Order