Ameena Begum vs The State of Telangana & Ors.

referred to in the Detention Order, alleged to have been committed by the Detenu have led to the satisfaction being formed, still the same are separate and stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life – The offence in respect of the minor girl did exercise consideration of the Court for some time but it was noted that the Detenu was not arrested because of an order passed by the High Court on an application u/s. 438 of the Cr.PC. – Even otherwise, the gravity of the offences alleged in Arun Ghosh case was higher in degree, yet, the same were not considered as affecting ‘public order’ – The only other offence that could attract the enumerated category of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” and an order of preventive detention, if at all, is the stray incident where the Detenu has been charged u/s. 353, IPC and where the police has not even contemplated an arrest u/s. 41 of the Cr.PC – On an overall consideration of the circumstances, the existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is sufficient to address like offences under consideration, which the Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by the Detenu if not detained – The order of detention is, thus, indefensible. [Paras 29, 39 and 40] 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 – Application of mind in the order of detention dated 24.03.2023 – Proper or not:

Held: The Detenu was earlier preventively detained under the Act vide order of detention dated 04.03.2021, since quashed by the High Court by its order dated 16.08.2021 – The Commissioner stated that the present order of detention is based only on 5 (five) out of these 9 (nine) crimes (years 2022-2023), which are alleged to show that the Detenu’s activities are “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquillity in the area” – The Commissioner sought to project that he ordered detention based on the said 5 (five) FIRs, indication of the past offences allegedly committed by the Detenu – However, with the quashing of the order of detention dated 04.03.2021 by the High Court and such direction having attained finality, it defies logic why the Commissioner embarked on an elaborate narration of past offences, which are not relevant to the grounds of the present order of detention – Since the aforesaid order of the High Court went unchallenged and is, thus, binding upon the parties, it was not open to the Commissioner to refer to the very same antecedent offences again in the Detention Order under challenge – There was no direct nexus or link with the immediate need to order detention and there were extraneous considerations in the Detention Order. [Paras 43, 46 and 48] Preventive detention – Ordinary criminal law and extraordinary measure of law of preventive detention:

Held: In the instant case, it is neither the case of the respondents that the Detenu had not complied with the terms of the notice issued u/s. 41-A of the Cr. PC, nor has it been alleged that the conditions of bail had been violated by the Detenu – It is pertinent to note that in the three criminal proceedings where the Detenu had been released on bail, no applications for cancellation of bail had been moved by the State – In the light of the same, the provisions of the Act, which is an extraordinary statute, should not have been resorted to when ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to address the apprehensions leading to the impugned Detention Order – There may have existed sufficient grounds to appeal against the bail orders, but the circumstances did not warrant the circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure to resort to an extraordinary measure of the law of preventive detention. [Para 51]

Preventive detention – Guidance for detaining authorities – Order to be in plain and simple language:

Held: There is no requirement in law of orders of detention being expressed in language that would normally be considered elegant or artistic – An order of detention, which is capable of comprehension, has to precisely set forth the grounds of detention without any vagueness – The substance of the order and how it is understood by the detenu determines its nature – An order in plain and simple language providing clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was formed is what a detenu would look for, since the detenu has a right to represent against the order of detention and claim that such order should not have been made at all. [Para 49]

& ORS.

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 – Role of the Advisory Board and the Government in the period of detention:

Held: It is one thing to say that the Advisory Board has expressed an opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention and, therefore, the detention has been continued; yet, it is quite another thing to say that the detention should continue for the maximum permissible period – In the light of sub-section (2) of section 11 read with sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, the period for which the detention should continue is left to be specified by the Government with the stipulation in section 13 thereof that the maximum period shall be 12 (twelve) months from the date of detention – This appears on a plain reading of the relevant statutory provisions – The duration for which a detenu is to be kept in detention is for the detaining authority to decide and not the Advisory Board – The period of detention and the terminal point has, therefore, to be decided by the Government. [Para 58] 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 term “maximum period” in s.13 and continuing detention: Held: The very term “maximum period” in section 13 vests the Government with discretion, allowing it to be exercised while considering whether the detention is to be continued for the maximum period of 12 (twelve) months or any lesser period – The period of detention ought to necessarily vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be uniform in all cases – The objective sought to be fulfilled in each case, whether is sub-served by continuing detention for the maximum period, ought to bear some reflection in the order of detention; or else, the Government could be accused of unreasonableness and unfairness. [Paras

63 and 70]

Preventive detention – Judicial reviewability – The Courts to test the legality of orders of preventive detention, when called upon to examine the same :

Held: In the circumstances of a given case, a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether: (i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; (ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; (iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; (iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; (v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; (vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;

(vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; (viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; (ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu & ORS.

the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and (x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to. [Para 25]

Constitution of India – Preventive detention – Reckless invocation of:

Held: It requires no serious debate that preventive detention, conceived as an extraordinary measure by the framers of the Constitution, has been rendered ordinary with its reckless invocation over the years as if it were available for use even in the ordinary course of proceedings – To unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in the Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced. [Para 57] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1974 SC 2154: [1975]

1 SCR 778; Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate AIR 1964 SC 334: [1964] SCR 921; Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 409: [2000] 1 SCR 945; Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar [1966] 1 SCR 709; Kuso Sah vs. The State of Bihar (1974) 1 SCC 195; Fagu Shaw vs. The State of West Bengal (1974) 4 SCC 152: [1974] 2 SCR 832 – followed. Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal (1975) 2 SCC 81: [1975]

2 SCR 832; Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 531: [1981] 1 SCR 640; Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150: [2017] 4 SCR 52; Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs. State of Telangana (2020)

13 SCC 632: [2019] 18 SCR 1174; Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011)

5 SCC 244: [2011] 4 SCR 740; Rajesh Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2002) 7 SCC 129; Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14: [1984] 3 SCR 435; Banka Sneha Sheela vs. The State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 415; Mallada K Sri Ram vs. State of Telangana 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424; A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271: [1982] 2 SCR 272 – relied on.

Vijay Kumar vs. Union of India (1988) 2 SCC 57; Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Crl. Appeal No.2304 of 2023, decided on 16 th August, 2023; – distinguished.

A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27: [1950] SCR 88; Rustomjee Cawasjee Cooper vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 564: [1970]

3 SCR 530; Shibban Lal Saksena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 179: [1954] SCR 418; Common Cause vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667: [1999] 3 SCR 1279; Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98: [1970] 3 SCR 288; Shaik Nazneen vs. The State of Telangana Crl. Appeal No.908 of 2022, dated 22nd June 2023; Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs. State of Bombay AIR 1952 SC 181: [1952] SCR 612; Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54: [1991] 3 SCR 102; Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99; Cherukari Mani vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 13 SCC 722: [2014] 6 SCR

750 Susannah Sharp vs. Wakefield & Ors. [1891] A.C. 173, 179 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES