The Supreme Court sets aside detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence affecting public order.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the preventive detention order against Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai, an alleged drug offender, under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, who highlighted the lack of material evidence demonstrating that the detenu's activities adversely affected public order.
The case originated when the Collector and District Magistrate of Hyderabad issued a detention order on March 10, 2025, against Aruna Bai, citing her involvement in multiple offenses related to narcotic drugs. The authorities were concerned that if released on bail, she would continue her illegal activities. This order was upheld by the Telangana High Court, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court by the detenu's daughter, Roshini Devi.
The Supreme Court examined the grounds of detention, which referred to three registered offenses and the potential risk of Aruna Bai indulging in similar crimes if granted bail. However, the Court found the detention order lacked the necessary subjective satisfaction that the detenu's actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as required by the Act of 1986.
Emphasizing the distinction between "law and order" and "public order," the bench reiterated that mere apprehensions or repeated offenses under ordinary law do not justify preventive detention. The Court noted the absence of specific evidence showing that the narcotic drugs dealt with by the detenu posed a grave danger to public health, which is crucial for such detention orders.
The judgment underscored that preventive detention laws are extraordinary measures that should not circumvent ordinary criminal procedures unless there is concrete evidence of a threat to public order. Referring to previous judicial precedents, the Court cautioned against using preventive detention as a substitute for regular criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court's decision to quash the detention order sets a precedent emphasizing judicial scrutiny and the need for concrete evidence in preventive detention cases. The ruling is expected to impact similar cases, reinforcing the importance of distinguishing between threats to public order and routine law enforcement challenges.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 cannot be justified merely based on apprehensions of repetition of offenses. The detention order must demonstrate subjective satisfaction and indicate how the activities adversely affect public order, distinguishing it from law and order.
Statutory provision(s): Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 Sections 2(a), 2(f), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3); Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(c), Section 20(b)(ii)(b).
Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2835148
