Preventive detention vis-à-vis “public order”
Paras 10–11
Mere registration of multiple criminal cases under the NDPS Act against a detenu, without specific material demonstrating that such activities caused or were likely to cause harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or posed a grave threat to public health, is insufficient to sustain an order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.
Headnote 2 — Distinction between “law and order” and “public order”
Para 10
There exists a well-settled and fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”; activities amounting to breach of law and order do not ipso facto constitute disturbance of public order unless their impact transcends individual cases and affects the community at large.
Headnote 3 — Bail and preventive detention
Paras 8–9
Preventive detention cannot be justified merely on the apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, may indulge in similar offences, particularly where there is no material to show violation of bail conditions and no steps have been taken for cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law.
Headnote 4 — Subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind
Paras 8–10
Reproduction of statutory language contained in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986, without indicating how the detenu’s activities actually or likely affected maintenance of public order, reflects non-application of mind and vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Headnote 5 — Preventive detention not a substitute for ordinary criminal process
Paras 8–9 (read with Ameena Begum, cited and applied)
Preventive detention being an extraordinary measure cannot be invoked as a substitute for cancellation of bail or to bypass ordinary criminal procedure, particularly when ordinary law provides sufficient remedies to deal with the alleged conduct of the detenu.
ANALYSIS (Judicial Reasoning of the Court)
-
Nature of material relied upon
The detention order was founded solely on:-
three criminal cases registered within a short span,
-
the detenu being labelled a “drug offender” under Section 2(f),
-
an apprehension that she might reoffend if released on bail.
-
-
Absence of public-order impact
The Court found that:-
no material was placed to show how the alleged ganja offences affected the community at large,
-
there was no indication of widespread danger, panic, alarm, or grave public health threat,
-
mere seizure and registration of crimes does not automatically elevate the conduct to public-order disturbance.
-
-
Improper reliance on bail apprehension
The detaining authority:-
relied heavily on the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail,
-
failed to examine whether bail conditions were violated,
-
did not attempt cancellation of bail,
thereby revealing an intent to detain “at any cost”.
-
-
Extraneous considerations and misuse of detention law
Applying Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, the Court held that:-
preventive detention cannot be used to circumvent judicial orders granting bail,
-
expressions showing frustration with bail orders indicate extraneous considerations,
-
such misuse vitiates the detention order.
-
-
Failure of subjective satisfaction
The Court held that:-
mere reproduction of statutory phrases is insufficient,
-
subjective satisfaction must be supported by specific, relevant material,
-
absence of such material renders detention unconstitutional.
-
RATIO DECIDENDI
An order of preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 is unsustainable where it is based merely on registration of criminal cases and apprehension of future offences upon release on bail, without specific material demonstrating that the detenu’s activities affected or were likely to affect maintenance of public order; preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for cancellation of bail or ordinary criminal process.
