2023 Supreme(SC) 825

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Ameena Begum – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2706 of 2023, SLP (Criminal) No. 8510 of 2023
Decided On : 04-09-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Preventive Detention - Recourse to preventive detention can be taken by executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by person, sought to be detained, prejudicial to certain specified objects traceable in a validly enacted law.
(2) Breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder - For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order, specific activity must have an impact on broader community or the general public, evoking feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity.
(3) Preventive Detention - Presumption of official acts having been validly performed cannot be pressed into service for upholding period for which detention would continue if order of detention itself suffers from illegality rendering it unsustainable.

Headnote:

(A) Preventive Detention - Recourse to preventive detention can be taken by executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by person, sought to be detained, prejudicial to certain specified objects traceable in a validly enacted law - Since an order of preventive detention has effect of invading one's personal liberty merely on suspicion and is not viewed as punitive, and facts on which subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is based for ordering preventive detention is not justiciable, it is only just and proper that such drastic power is not only invoked in appropriate cases but is also exercised responsibly, rationally and reasonably - With passage of time and expansion and development of law, it is no longer law that a preventive detention action, howsoever lawful it might appear on its face, cannot be invalidated by Constitutional Courts. (Paras 10 and 20)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 22 - Preventive Detention - So long clause (3) of Article 22 of Constitution itself authorises detention as a preventive measure, none can take exception to such a measure being adopted and it is only a limited judicial review by Constitutional Courts that can be urged by an aggrieved detenu - Since object of a preventive detention law is not punitive but preventive and precautionary, ordinarily it is best left to discretion of detaining authority - Any order of a detaining authority evincing that same runs beyond his powers, as are actually conferred, would not amount to a valid order made under governing preventive detention law and be vulnerable on a challenge being laid. (Paras 23 and 25)

(C) Preventive Detention - Challenge as to - Allegation of habitually committing offences including outraging modesty of women, cheating, extortion, obstructing public servants from discharging their legitimate duties, robbery and criminal intimidation along with his associates in an organized manner - Breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder - For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order, specific activity must have an impact on broader community or the general public, evoking feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity - Existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is sufficient to address like offences under consideration, which Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by Detenu if not Detained - Order of detention is indefensible - Considering past criminal history, which is proximate, by itself would not render an order illegal - Commissioner in Detention Order made pointed reference to Detenu being a habitual offender by listing ten criminal proceedings in which Detenu was involved during years 2019-20 - However, merely because detenu was charged for multiple offences, it could not be said that he was in habit of committing such offences - Habituality of committing offences cannot, in isolation, be taken as a basis of any detention order; rather it has to be tested on metrics of 'public order' - There was no direct nexus or link with immediate need to order detention. [Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 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 - Section 3(2)] (Paras 31, 33, 40, 43, 45 and 48)

(D) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 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 - Section 3(2) - Constitution of India - Article 22(4) - Preventive Detention - Challenge as to - Habitual offender - An order of detention which is capable of comprehension, has to precisely set forth grounds of detention without any vagueness - Order in plain and simple language providing clarity of how subjective satisfaction was formed is what a detenu would look for, since detenu has a right to represent against order of detention - On the ground of consideration of extraneous materials too, Detention Order is unsustainable - Preventive detention law cannot authorise detention of a person for a period longer than three months - There could be no warrant for proposition that when it boils down to confirming an order of detention under a preventive detention law which is not punitive, Government can seek immunity and enjoy an unfettered, unguided and unlimited discretion in continuing detention for maximum period - It is no longer the law that an administrative authority is under obligation to give a reasoned decision only if statute under which it is acting requires it to assign reasons - Presumption of official acts having been validly performed cannot be pressed into service for upholding period for which detention would continue if order of detention itself suffers from illegality rendering it unsustainable - Detention Order and impugned judgment and order quashed. (Paras 49, 54, 59, 63, 69 and 81)

Facts of the case:

Under assail in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 28th June, 2023 of a Division Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana. Vide impugned judgment, a writ petition instituted by appellant seeking a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and order of detention dated 24th March, 2023 of appellant's husband, impugned therein, upheld.

Findings of Court:

It is indeed true that appellant had raised a contention before Court that Government of Andhra Pradesh had directed detention of appellant for maximum period of 12 (twelve) months without any application of mind or providing reasons as to why this is necessary.

Result : Appeal allowed.