Preventive Detention Can't Be Used To Override Bail, Must Prove 'Public Order' Threat : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the preventive detention under the Telangana 'Goonda Act', ruling that simply declaring the detenu a 'habitual drug offender' was not sufficient for preventive detention unless shown how detenu's actions specifically threatened public order.

“Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to be missing in the order of detention.”, observed a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which upheld the District Magistrate's detention order detaining Appellant.

Since the Appellant was granted bail in NDPS cases, the State invoked the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, known as 'Goonda Act', to not let her free.

The State argued in support of the detention order, contending that the invocation of the Goonda Act was justified as detenu was a habitual drug offender, involved in three crimes in a single year, and there was an apprehension of her involvement in a similar crime upon moving out on bail.

Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar found the invocation of the preventive detention law to be a 'colourable exercise of power' to thwart the benefit of bail granted to the Appellant.

It added that the Preventive Detention laws cannot be invoked on mere apprehension that the accused might indulge in similar crimes in the future if moved out on bail. It added that a detention order cannot be passed unless it is shown that the acts of the accused prejudiced the maintenance of public order.

“Thus, mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that in the event of the detenu being released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention.”, the court said.

The Court found the detention order to be incomplete, as it doesn't indicate “in what manner the maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the detenu.”

“Mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the order of detention would not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard. It is well settled that there is a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, directing the release of the Appellant from detention.

Cause Title: ROSHINI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Sunny Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Satyam Parashar, Adv. Mr. Devi Venkata Srikar Pagadala, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Ojha, Adv.