Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Vadiya Parvathi, W/o Vadiya Ramadasu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preventive detention basis on detenu's criminal record (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to preventive detention legality (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. public health risk as basis for detention (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. judicial precedent on public health and detention (Para 7) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed, order affirmed (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 12.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru District, against the husband of the petitioner, by name Vaditya Ramadasu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2002, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 29.10.2025, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief overview of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenu may be stated as follows:
(i) About six crimes were registered against the det
Manufacturing and selling illicit liquor is considered prejudicial to public order, justifying preventive detention under the A.P. Prohibition Act.
Detention under public safety laws requires strong evidentiary support, without which subjective satisfaction for detaining individuals cannot stand.
Detention order confirmed - Habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor - Acts and conduct attributed to petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order o....
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968 requires evidence showing that the detenue's acts are prejudicial to public order or ca....
Preventive detention is justified when actions significantly threaten public health, establishing a disturbance of public order as defined under relevant statutes.
(1) Preventive Detention - Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention - An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution - Pendency of ....
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
Preventive detention requires that the activities of the individual must adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the acts of the detenu being prejudicial to the interest of the society and public order, is sufficient to justify the preventive det....
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear demonstration that the detainee's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
