Inability Of State Police To Tackle Law & Order No Excuse To Invoke Preventive Detention : Supreme Court

In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court has summarised the important points relating to preventive detention. The Court stated that the Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.

While setting aside the preventive detention of an alleged chain snatcher under the Telangana preventive detention law, the Court summarised the points as follows.

(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction,

(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote,

(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,

(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind,

(v) While making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention,

(vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction,

(vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,

(viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s) / grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on the record, and

(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention . For passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority.

Reversing the High Court's findings which upheld the detention order, the Bench Comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that unless the activities of the person preventively detained are of such a nature that created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned area/locality, the order of the prevention detention can't be justified.

“In the case on hand, there is nothing to indicate that any such statements of people, more particularly the women of the concerned locality, were recorded so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the nefarious activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality.”, the Judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala said.

The case relates to the preventive detention of the person/detenu who was declared 'GOONDA' under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”). The allegations against the detenu were that his acts of chain snatching created fear and panic in the minds of the women. The registration of two FIRs for the alleged offences of robbery etc against the detenu led to the passing of the preventive detention order against him.

The crucial issue that appeared before the court was whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order justifying the order of preventive detention.

Answering negatively, the court observed that the case in hand doesn't warrant preventive detention of the Appellant/detenu because the activities done by the Appellant could be dealt with under the provisions of the ordinary law (IPC), moreover, the activities don't lead to the situation that affects the society at large to order preventive detention against the appellant.

“What has been alleged against the appellant detenu could be said to have raised the problems relating to law and order but we find it difficult to say that they impinged on public order. This Court has time and again, reiterated that in order to bring the activities of a person within the expression of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” the activities must be of such a nature that the ordinary laws cannot deal with them or prevent subversive activities affecting society. Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.”

Distinction Between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order' Explained 

The court underscored the distinction between 'law & order' and 'Public Order', stating that the expression 'law and order' in its affect is confined only to a few individuals, whereas 'public order' has a wide spectrum affecting the community or the public at large.

The court asserted that if the effect of the contravention of law is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise the problem of law and order only.

“It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.”, the court added.

In a nutshell, the court held that the true difference between 'law and order' and 'public order' doesn't lie with the nature or quality of the act but with the impact of the act on society.

“In other words, the true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different.”, the court observed..

Conclusion

After noting that the act of chain snatching of the detenu didn't create an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality to justify his preventive detention against the breach of maintenance of public order, the Supreme Court quashed the order of detention while setting aside the Judgment of the High Court upholding the detenu detention order.

The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Kumar Vaibhav

Also Read - 'All Preventive Detention Laws Necessarily Harsh': Supreme Court Emphasises Strict Adherence To Procedure In Preventive Detention Cases

10 Factors To Be Considered By Courts To Decide Legality Of Preventive Detention : Supreme Court Explains

Preventive Detention Laws Are Exceptional Measures, Not To Be Invoked When Ordinary Criminal Law Provides Remedies : Supreme Court

Preventive Detention Law A Colonial Legacy, Confers Arbitrary Power; Every Procedural Lapse Must Benefit Detenue's Case : Supreme Court

Case Title: NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment