The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the 12-month preventive detention of a man accused of involvement in multiple cases of smuggling red sandalwood, holding that a satisfactorily explained delay in deciding a representation against preventive detention does not vitiate the detention order.

In examining the delay, the Court found that the authorities had adequately explained it by detailing the steps taken to obtain remarks and the deployment of officials for census-related duties and preparatory work for the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The Court made these observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by the detenu's wife, challenging the preventive detention order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, the competent authorities may order preventive detention of persons falling within the categories specified under the Act when necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to public order.

Against this backdrop, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:

“During the said period, the concerned officers and staff were required to attend to fieldwork and other duties connected with the census operations and, thereafter, the preparatory work relating to the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Consequently, the availability of the concerned officers and staff for routine office work was affected during the aforesaid period. The petitioner's representation was, therefore, processed at the Collectorate along with the other official duties and responsibilities being attended to by the concerned officers and staff.

Having regard to the contents of the counter-affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, as referred to hereinabove, we are satisfied that the delay in considering the representation has been satisfactorily explained. 

The material placed on record discloses the steps taken by the concerned authorities at various stages for obtaining the requisite remarks and processing the representation. The explanation furnished by the respondents, including the official duties being attended to during the relevant period, cannot be said to be unacceptable or unreasonable.”

The petition challenged the detention order dated February 12, 2026, and sought the detenu's release through a writ of Habeas Corpus. The State had confirmed his detention for twelve months from February 14, 2026, based on the Advisory Board's report.

The detention order stemmed from six criminal cases involving the alleged illegal felling and smuggling of red sanders.

The petitioner raised two principal grounds against the detention. She first contended that the detaining authority had not been furnished with the detenu's anticipatory bail application and order in one of the criminal cases. She also argued that the delay in deciding her representation to the Government vitiated the detention.

On the second ground, the petitioner submitted that she had made the representation on April 17, 2026, and that the Government sought remarks from the District Collector on April 24, 2026. However, the Collector furnished the remarks only on June 1, 2026. The Government rejected the representation on June 15, 2026. The petitioner argued that the 38-day delay in receiving the remarks, followed by a further 14 days before rejection, amounted to an unexplained delay of 52 days.

In response, the State submitted that the delay was adequately explained. After receiving the Government's request, the Collector sought remarks from the Superintendent of Police, who obtained inputs from the concerned officers and investigating officers. The State further explained that officials were engaged in census duties and preparatory work for the SIR during the relevant period, affecting routine administrative work.

Upon considering these submissions, the High Court accepted the explanation and found no unexplained or inordinate delay that would invalidate the detention order or the detenu's continued detention.

Turning to the first ground, the Court noted that the detention order recorded that the detenu had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in the relevant criminal case. It held that, since the bail order had been considered, the non-placement of the bail application itself would not vitiate the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

The Court further noted that the detaining authority had recorded its satisfaction that the detenu fell within the definition of a “Goonda” under Section 2(g) of the 1986 Act. The detention order referred to the alleged illegal felling of red sanders trees, theft of timber, illegal transportation to other States and smuggling activities.

The Court emphasised that judicial review in preventive detention matters is limited. It held that courts cannot sit in appeal over the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction or substitute their own.

However, they can intervene if the order suffers from illegality, non-application of mind, reliance on irrelevant material, failure to consider relevant material or any other legally recognised infirmity.

Finding no such infirmity, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the detenu's continued detention.

Counsel for the Petitioner: D. Purnachandra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh