Preventive Detention Unwarranted When There's No Breach Of Public Order & Ordinary Law Can Be Applied: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently quashed a preventive detention order issued under the MPDA Act 1981, holding that when a person can be dealt with under ordinary law and there is no cogent material to show breach of public order, invocation of the preventive detention law is unwarranted."in our view, the satisfaction of the detaining authority that activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order has no real basis. Besides, where a person can be dealt with under ordinary laws of the land, invocation of the power under preventive detention laws is not warranted in absence of cogent material to show breach of public order", the Court said.With these observations, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan directed immediate release of the appellant (unless required in any other case).Briefly put, the appellant was put under detention pursuant to an order dated 13.10.2025 issued under Section 31(1) and 31(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). As per the order, the appellant was a "bootlegger" in terms of Section 2(p) of the Act and action against him under ordinary law was insufficient. Further, to prevent him from indulging in bootlegging activities prejudicial to public order, it was necessary to detain him.The grounds of detention included a list of 5 cases registered against him, out of which 2 were pending investigation and 3 pending trial. The two recent cases, which formed basis of the detention order, were under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The appellant had not been arrested in any of the cases. In 2024, similar action under the MPDA Act was proposed against him, but it was dropped.Initially, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court against the detention order, contending that no steps were taken for his arrest and there was no cogent material to show that the alleged activities were prejudicial to public order. It was also urged that when the matter could be handled under ordinary law of the land, there was no ground to invoke preventive detention law.In February this year, the High Court dismissed his petition. Aggrieved, he appealed to the Supreme Court.The State contested the appellant's submissions by contending that he had been indulging in sale of spurious liquor (Toddy). He had indulged in such activity in the past as well, but following the recent two cases, the authority took a conscious decision to place him under detention.After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court noted that the State did not arrest the appellant and there was nothing in the detention order to show that his activities were prejudicial to public order."A bald averment that appellant's activity has been prejudicial to maintenance of public order is not sufficient. There must be cogent material to indicate that appellant's activity has disrupted public order...It is not stated in the grounds that by consumption of spurious Toddy supplied by the appellant people fell sick thereby causing disturbance to the public order. Besides, there is no material to demonstrate that there was an effort to arrest the appellant in connection with the cases registered against him."The Court referred to the decision in Arjun v. State of Maharashtra, a similar case, where the appellant was not attempted to be arrested and the preventive detention order was held to be bad.Ultimately, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court order, the top Court said,"by mere use of repetitive stereotypical words, as found in the 1981 Act, in absence of cogent material to indicate that there had been a breach of public order due to prejudicial activities of the appellant, preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act is not warranted."HeadnotePreventive Detention — Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 — Section 3 — Bootlegger — Maintenance of Public Order vs. Law and Order — Non-application of Mind — Failure to invoke ordinary laws of the land - Held: The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" had no real basis - A bald and stereotypical averment that the appellant's activities are prejudicial to public order is legally insufficient - To invoke the stringent powers of preventive detention, there must be cogent material on record to demonstrate that the alleged activities disrupted public order, rather than just affecting 'law and order' - In the present case, despite five registered cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Investigating Agency made no effort to arrest the appellant under ordinary criminal law, even though the offences are cognizable - Where a person can be effectively dealt with under the ordinary laws of the land, the invocation of preventive...

Preventive Detention Unwarranted When There's No Breach Of Public Order & Ordinary Law Can Be Applied: Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Preventive Detention Unwarranted When There's No Breach Of Public Order & Ordinary Law Can Be Applied: Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers