The Court concluded that an order of preventative custody cannot be upheld simply because the person in question is involved in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court has stated in Mallada K Sri Ram v. State of Telangana and Others that the government cannot employ preventative detention powers just because the individual in question has been involved in a criminal case.
A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant also took a dim view of the state of Telangana's "callous exercise" of preventative detention powers, noting that the supreme court had invalidated over five detention decisions by Telangana in the previous five years.
In the last year alone, the High Court of Telangana has overturned at least ten detention orders issued by the Telangana administration.
"These figures reveal the detaining authorities' and respondent-callous state's use of the extraordinary power of preventative detention. We require the respondents to review any challenges to detention orders currently pending before the Advisory Board, High Court, or Supreme Court, and to assess the detention order's fairness in light of legal standards "the Court ordered
The Court noted in this case that the accused-appellant had been detained on the basis of two first information reports (FIRs) filed against him, and that this could not be the only reason for an accused to be held in preventive detention.
"The allegations levelled against the detainees are serious. However, an accused's personal liberty cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventative detention simply because he or she is involved in a criminal case "the Court said
The bench was hearing an appeal against a Telangana High Court ruling dismissing an appellant's Habeas Corpus petition challenging his imprisonment under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1986. (Telangana Act).
Background
Under Sections 408, 420, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, two First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against the appellant (IPC).
On May 19, 2021, an order of detention was issued against the appellant (detenu), stating that he was detained because he is a 'white-collar offender' under Section 2(x) of the Telangana Act of 1986, whose offence of defrauding gullible job aspirants had caused 'large scale fear and panic among the gullible unemployed job aspirants/you.'
He was so arrested on the grounds that he was acting in a way that jeopardised the maintenance of public order, as well as disrupting the society's peace, quiet, and social harmony.'
The appellant had been granted conditional bail in both FIRs, according to the detention order.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The apex court pointed out that the detention decision was clearly based on outdated information and reflected the detaining authority's lack of mental acumen. The detention order was issued approximately seven months after the first FIR was filed and around five months after the second FIR was filed, according to the Bench.
In light of this, the Court made the following observations:
"The mere suspicion of a transgression of law and order does not meet the requirement of negatively affecting the'maintenance of public order.' In this case, the fear of a public disturbance stemming from a crime that occurred more than seven months before the detention order has no validity in reality. The detaining authority's fear of a negative influence on public order is purely speculative, especially as there have been no reports of rioting since the detainee was freed on bond."
Furthermore, the Bench was of the opinion that the two FIRs filed against the appellant-detainee might be handled with in the ordinary course of criminal law rather than using the extraordinary powers of preventive detention.
In light of the foregoing, the Court quashed and reversed the appellant's detention order.
Comments