2006 (2) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether appellants detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 valid? Whether order of detention was justified, even though the appellant was in custody on the date of issuance of the order of detention?

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
2. Justification of detention when the appellant was already in custody.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982:
The appellant challenged his detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, claiming that the instances mentioned in the detention order did not disturb public order but only pertained to individual cases. The High Court upheld the detention, stating that the appellant's activities were detrimental to public order. However, before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the detention was unjustified as the acts complained of were not of such a nature to disturb public order. The Supreme Court considered the submissions but also addressed a second ground of challenge raised by the appellant.

Issue 2: Justification of detention when the appellant was already in custody:
The detaining authority had passed the order of detention against the appellant, who was already in custody, on the basis that there was an imminent chance of him being released on bail and continuing his activities prejudicial to public order. The Supreme Court referred to precedents to analyze the legality of such detention. Relying on previous judgments, the Court emphasized that preventive detention should only be used in exceptional cases and with caution. The Court scrutinized the circumstances of the case, including the timing of the detention order concerning the appellant's bail applications. The Court noted that there was no evidence of the appellant preparing to file another bail application or any imminent possibility of his release on bail. Drawing parallels with similar cases, the Court held that the detaining authority's satisfaction of the appellant's potential release on bail lacked substantial evidence and was merely speculative. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the detention order, and directed the release of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, in its detailed analysis, scrutinized the legality of the detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, and the justification for detaining an individual already in custody. The Court emphasized the need for concrete evidence and a genuine threat to public order to justify preventive detention, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and ordering his release.