ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HRISHIKESH ROY
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TELANGANA – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The Detention Order under Telangana PD Act 1986 must be within Article 21 and 22 constraints and require proximity and relevancy to public order, not merely law and order; mere bail ground is insufficient. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Public order requires evidence of harm, danger, or alarm to the public at large; liberal or broad readings of public order are cautioned; preventive detention is a hard safeguard requiring meticulous procedure and close judicial scrutiny. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court quashed the detention order because the grounds relied upon were primarily the fact of bail in five FIRs rather than direct threats to public order, and ordinary law remedies were available; preventive detention is not a substitute for ordinary criminal justice. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
R.F. Nariman, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 31.03.2021, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, by which a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging a Preventive Detention Order [hereinafter referred to as "Detention Order"] passed against the Petitioner's husband [hereinafter referred to as "the Detenu"] under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as "Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act"] , was dismissed.
3. The Detention Order under the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act is dated 28.09.2020. It refers to five FIRs that have been filed against the Detenu, all the said FIRs being under Section
Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746 – Distinguished [Para 7]
Commissioner of Police v. C. Sunita (2004) 7 SCC 467 – Referred [Para 7]
R.Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 SCC 14 – Referred [Para 7]
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709 – Relied [Para 12]
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra (1980) 2 SCR 1095 – Relied [Para 18]
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14 – Relied [Para 18]
Union of India v. Yumnam Anand (2007) 10 SCC 190 – Relied [Para 19]
Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198 – Relied [Para 20]
Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 4 SCC 699 – Distinguished [Para 21]
Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur (2012) 2 SCC 176 – Relied [Para 22]
Mungala Yadamma v. State of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.