Inability Of State Police To Tackle Law & Order No Excuse To Invoke Preventive Detention : Supreme Court

In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court has summarised the important points relating to preventive detention. The Court stated that the Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.While setting aside the preventive detention of an alleged chain snatcher under the Telangana preventive detention law, the Court summarised the points as follows.(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction,(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote,(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind,(v) While making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention,(vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction,(vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,(viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s) / grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on the record, and(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention . For passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority.Reversing the High Court's findings which upheld the detention order, the Bench Comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that unless the activities of the person preventively detained are of such a nature that created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned area/locality, the order of the prevention detention can't be justified.“In the case on hand, there is nothing to indicate that any such statements of people, more particularly the women of the concerned locality, were recorded so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the nefarious activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality.”, the Judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala said. The case relates to the preventive detention of the person/detenu who was declared 'GOONDA' under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”). The allegations against the detenu were that his acts of chain snatching created fear and panic in the minds of the women. The registration of two FIRs for the alleged offences of robbery etc...

Inability Of State Police To Tackle Law & Order No Excuse To Invoke Preventive Detention : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags