Mere Involvement In Sexual Offence Not Sufficient: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

In a case involving allegations of rape and extortion, the Supreme Court recently quashed a preventive detention order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 observing that mere involvement in a sexual offence (including gang rape) is not itself sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the Act (giving power to pass detention orders).

"This is for the reason that the offence must be integrally connected 'with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'," said the Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.

In the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that based on order of Detaining Authority, the grounds of detention, and the Confirmation Order, it could not be seen as to how the offence was connected to "prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". 

To recapitulate facts of the case, a complaint was initially filed against the detenu (appellant's brother) under Section 384 of IPC for extortion of a public servant at knife-point. A few days later, another complaint was filed under Sections 394/376D/411/34 of IPC alleging that the public servant was also sexually assaulted by an associate of the detenu with his assistance. This led to the detenu's arrest, however, he came to be released months later on default bail.

During this period, ie between the date of detenu's arrest and date of his release on bail, a detention order was passed by the Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act, and the order was confirmed by the State. The detention order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, but the plea was dismissed. Against the High Court order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

After perusing the material, the Supreme Court held: "we are of the opinion that invocation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is not justified as mere involvement in a sexual offence, including one under Section 376D, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the 1986 Act."

It was further observed that the allegations pertained to solitary instances (one following the other) and there was no material before the Detaining Authority to indicate that the detenu was in the habit of committing the same offence again.

It is worthwhile to note that Section 3 of the Act gives power to the government to pass an order of detention in respect of a sexual offender, however, such order shall be passed if it is deemed "necessary" for prevention of any act "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". 

Case Title: Vaddi Lakshmi v. State of Telangana & Ors, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC)254

Click here to read the order