The Supreme Court has recently held that mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order.
The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by one Mallada K. Sri Ram, accused of hatching a plan to collect money from individuals by misrepresenting that they would be given jobs, and bank accounts would be opened in their names.
The Court observed that it quashed over five detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying the standard for maintenance of public order and relying on stale materials while passing the orders of detention.
A division bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant court made this observation while quashing the detention of a man under 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.
In the case, an FIR was registered on October 15, 2020, against the detenu and others for offences punishable under Sections 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Apex Court took a grim view of the preventive detention orders passed by the Telangana Government without application of mind and based on stale material.
On December 17, 2020, another FIR was registered against the detenu for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 120B of IPC based on similar allegations at the behest of another complaint. The detenu was arrested, in the first case, on December 17, 2020, and, in the second case, on the execution of a prisoner transit warrant on January 4, 2021.
In the first case, he was released on bail on January 8, 2021, subject to the condition that he would appear before the Station House Officer (SHO), on the date fixed between 10.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet. In the second case, he was released on bail by an order dated January 11, 2021, subject to the condition that he would appear before the SHO on another date between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. for a period of three months.
However, an order of detention was passed against the detenu on May 19, 2021. The order of detention stated that the detenu is a ‘whitecollar offender’ under Section 2(x) of the Telangana Act of 1986 whose offence of cheating gullible job aspirants has been causing large scale fear and panic among the gullible unemployed job aspirants/youth and thus he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquillity and social harmony in the society”. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the detenue.
Disapproving of the high court judgment and quashing the detention order, the Supreme Court held that the order of detention suffered from a non-application of mind.
Besides, the Court observed that the order of detention was passed nearly seven months after the registration of the first FIR and about five months after the registration of the second FIR.
It also held that the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in criminal proceedings.
The court said that despite notice having been served on the respondents, no counter affidavit had been filed. The court decided to decline the request for an adjournment for filing a counter-affidavit since a detailed and comprehensive counter-affidavit that was filed before the High Court was already on its record. However, the court rebuked the government and said, The liberty of the citizen cannot be left to the lethargy of and the delays on the part of the state.
“It is also relevant to note, that in the last five years, this Court has quashed over
five detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying the standard for maintenance of public order and relying on stale materials while passing the orders of detention. At least ten detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 have been set aside by the High Court of Telangana in the last one year itself. These numbers evince a callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the detaining authorities and the respondent-state. We direct the respondents to take stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme
Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against lawful standards,” the order reads.
The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25 January 2022. “The order of detention which has been
passed against the detenu on May 19, 2021 shall accordingly stand quashed and set aside. “