Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Shameem Akther, JJ.
Majji Jhansi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 1554 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2021
Habeas Corpus - Immoral Traffic Offender - 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) - The judgment discusses the constitutional safeguards with regard to the welfare of the fetus in the womb of the detenue and the effect of detention on the unborn child. It emphasizes the rights of the unborn child and the need for protection of the fetus, leading to the setting aside of the detention order based on the pregnancy of the detenue alone.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue, an 'Immoral Traffic Offender', was preventively detained under Section 3(2) of the 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. The detenue, who was pregnant at the time of the detention order, challenged the order on the grounds of her pregnancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the constitutional safeguards for the welfare of the fetus and the rights of the unborn child, leading to the setting aside of the detention order based on the pregnancy of the detenue alone.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order and the consequential confirmation order were liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the constitutional safeguards with regard to the welfare of the fetus in the womb of the detenue and the effect of detention on the unborn child. It emphasized the rights of the unborn child and the need for protection of the fetus, leading to the setting aside of the detention order based on the pregnancy of the detenue alone.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order and the consequential confirmation order were set aside. The respondents were directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith, if she is no longer required in any other criminal case. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition were closed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Shameem Akther, J.
1. This habeas corpus petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, challenging the detention order Vide No. 01/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2021, dated 02.01.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2/Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, whereby, the detenue, viz., Majji Rajeshwari @ Madhu @ Tamina Rajeshwari, D/o. Srinivas Rao, aged 27 years, has been preventively detained under Section 3(2) of the 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, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O. Rt. No. 607, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 17.3.2021, passed by respondent No. 1.
2. Heard the submissions of Sri B. Anil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that by relying on two cases registered against the detenue in the year 2020, viz., (1) Crime No. 102/2020 of Meerpet Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370(A) (2) of IPC; and (2) Crime No. 1075/2020 of Uppal Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370(A)(2) of IPC, the respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, passed the impugned detention order, dated 02.01.2021. According to the respondent No. 2, the detenue is an 'Immoral Traffic Offender' and that she, alongwith her associate, has been organizing prostitution by procuring girls from West Bengal State, Hyderabad and other parts of Telangana State through her agents and organizing prostitution clandestinely by acting as a leader/member of criminal gang to make easy money. With a view to prevent the detenue from indulging in such illegal and dangerous activities which are prejudicial and detrimental to the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order, dated 02.01.2021, was passed. The detention order was confirmed by the respondent No. 1, by order, dated 17.03.2021. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, vehemently contended that as on the date of passing of the impugned detention order, dated 02.01.2021, the detenue was pregnant. Neither the detenue nor her mother (petitioner No. 1) were aware of the said fact in order to bring the same to the notice of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. However, the detenue came to know about the same only after her detention by virtue of the impugned detention order. On this sole ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside and the detenue can be released from prison, since an unborn child in the womb of the detenue cannot be punished for the wrongdoings, if any, of the detenue. As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nobody is empowered to take away the fundamental right of life and personal liberty of a person, except by the procedure established by law. An unborn child deserves all the fundamental rights and he/she should be granted the 'Right to life' as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, similar to a normal person, because the unborn child has prepared himself to enjoy the journey of life since the day of conception. Having submitted so, the learned Counsel ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned detention order and the consequential confirmation order a
AI
The judgment establishes the legal principle that the welfare and rights of the unborn child, including protection from distressful conditions that inhere in detention, must be considered in cases in....
The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation for the unlawful and illegal detention of the detenue.
Pre-execution challenges to detention orders under preventive detention laws are limited to exceptional cases where the order is prima facie illegal or issued without authority.
Preventive detention orders cannot be challenged before execution unless exceptional circumstances arise; individual liberty must be delicately balanced against public safety.
Judicial review of preventive detention orders is limited; challenges before execution are permissible only in exceptional cases where the order is prima facie illegal.
Pre-execution challenges to detention orders are permissible only in exceptional cases, emphasizing the need for surrender before contesting such orders.
Judicial review of preventive detention orders is limited to exceptional cases where the order is prima facie illegal or passed without authority.
A detenu cannot challenge a preventive detention order before execution unless exceptional circumstances exist, emphasizing the balance between individual liberty and state interests.
The gravity and nature of the act are relevant in determining the necessity of detention under the Acts.
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
