SC Says PD Act Must Be Invoked Within the Statutory Limits, Not Based on Apprehensions
This was challenged by the Anguri Bai’s daughter through their counsel Ravi Shankar Jandhyala before the Supreme Court.
Hyderabad:The Supreme Court has made it clear that preventive detention laws, being exceptional in nature, must be invoked strictly within their statutory limits and cannot be used to “clip the wings” of an accused when ordinary criminal law provides safeguards. While giving bail to Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai, of Dhoolpet, the court also underscored that the extraordinary power of preventive detention cannot be misused as a substitute for ordinary criminal law remedies.
Stating this, a bench of comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar struck down a preventive detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 against Anguri Bai, against whom three criminal cases under NDPS Act were pending.
The bench held that mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there was material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act. “This material is found to be missing in the order of detention,” the bench pointed out and ordered the immediate release of Anguri Bai, unless required in any other case. The court reaffirmed that there was a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”.
Alleging habitual involvement of Anguri Bai in ganja peddling despite criminal cases under NDPS Act, the Hyderabad collector and district magistrate under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities had issued prevention detention orders against her on March 10 last. The Telangana High Court upheld the order, which said that in case Anguri Bai was granted bail, she would resort to similar unlawful activities. Keeping in view her antecedents and considering the ill-effects of ganja on public health, prevention detention is warranted, the collector’s order said.
It also mentioned that detention under ordinary law had no deterrent effect in preventing Anguri Bai’s prejudicial activities. The order said she was being detained by an appropriate order of detention as a last resort, in the interest of public at large and to prevent her from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.
The PD order also stated that recourse to normal law would involve considerable time and may not be an effective deterrent. This contention was also upheld by the High Court.
This was challenged by the Anguri Bai’s daughter through their counsel Ravi Shankar Jandhyala before the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Jandhyala argued that the detaining authority intended to detain Anguri Bai at any cost. If the authority was of the view that she had violated any bail condition, steps for cancellation of her liberty could be taken. Mere apprehension of her involvement of similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order was not sufficient ground to order of her preventive detention, he said.
Setting aside the orders issued by the collector, the Supreme Court noted that mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in the PD Act in the order of detention would not be sufficient. The order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard and it must 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, the Supreme Court said.