AP High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Says Reliance On Previously Nullified Grounds Vitiates Subjective Satisfaction

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a man's preventive detention order, holding that grounds forming part of an earlier detention order quashed by the Court could not be relied upon again, even alongside fresh grounds of detention.

The Court held that such reliance vitiated the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, warranting the detenu's release unless required in another pending case.

Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986, empowers the competent authorities to order preventive detention of persons falling within the categories specified under the Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar allowed a writ petition filed by the detenu's wife.

The Court observed:

“In the present case, the ground Nos. 3 to 11 which were in the previous preventive detention order dated 06.06.2023, which was quashed have again been taken into consideration in passing the order of preventive detention impugned in the present writ petition.

The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority by taking into consideration the nullified grounds stands completely vitiated. The order of preventive detention dated 28.03.2026, as also the confirmation order dated 15.05.2026, therefore, cannot be sustained.”

The case arose after the Collector and District Magistrate passed a preventive detention order against the detenu under Sections 3(1) and 3(2), read with Sections 2(f) and 2(g) of the Act. The order was based on eleven criminal cases registered against him over the years, including cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and other penal provisions. The State Government subsequently approved and confirmed the detention order.

Challenging the detention, the detenu's wife contended that nine of the eleven grounds had already formed the basis of an earlier preventive detention order, which the High Court had quashed.

She argued that although two additional grounds related to criminal cases registered after the earlier judgment, the authorities could not rely on the nine grounds forming part of the quashed order. Their inclusion, she submitted, amounted to consideration of irrelevant material.

The State did not dispute that the nine grounds in the impugned detention order were the same as those relied upon in the earlier order that had been quashed.

Examining the rival submissions, the Bench noted that the authorities had relied on the same nine grounds while passing the fresh detention order.

The Court held that once a detention order is quashed by a court exercising its writ jurisdiction, the grounds underlying that order cannot be relied upon, either wholly or in part, to arrive at the requisite satisfaction for a subsequent detention order, even when combined with fresh grounds.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the preventive detention order as well as the State Government's confirmation order.

It directed that the detenu be released immediately, if he was not required to be detained in any other pending case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shaik Afzal Mohammed

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, Assistant Government Pleader