2012 (1) TMI 318 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2A and B of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Held that - No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted. Preventive detention involves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him/her from committing certain types of offences. But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the detenue may have committed. After all, preventive detention in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial. Accordingly, while following the three-Judge Bench decision in Rekha's case (2011 (4) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) , we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20th July, 2011, and also quash the Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, issue by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.

Summary

Issues:
Detention order under preventive detention laws; Challenge to detention order before High Court; Interpretation of legal provisions for preventive detention; Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues; Constitutional guarantees of personal liberty; Proper grounds for invoking preventive detention laws; Distinction between preventive detention and ordinary criminal laws.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Detention Order issued under preventive detention laws to the appellant's husband, who was accused of being a bootlegger involved in illicit distillation of liquor. The Detaining Authority justified the detention, stating that normal legal procedures would be ineffective in preventing the detenue from further prejudicial activities. The High Court upheld the Detention Order, reasoning that it was necessary to curb the detenue's activities effectively.

The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment in Rekha's case, where it was held that ordinary criminal laws were sufficient to deal with offenses, and resorting to preventive detention was illegal. The appellant argued that the Detention Order was improper as the offenses fell under the A.P. Prohibition Act, which could be addressed through normal legal procedures.

The State of Andhra Pradesh referred to another judgment, G. Reddelah's case, which opined that in cases involving continuous and habitual offenses damaging public interest, preventive detention laws could be invoked. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that personal liberty is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. The Court reiterated that preventive detention should not be a substitute for ordinary criminal laws and must be based on sufficient grounds to protect the state's interests.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and quashing the Detention Order. The Court emphasized that preventive detention should not be used to keep individuals in perpetual custody without trial, and the Detention Order should be based on valid grounds. The judgment clarified the distinction between preventive detention and ordinary criminal laws, ensuring that personal liberty is safeguarded while maintaining public order.

The Court's decision in this case aligns with previous judgments emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and ensuring that preventive detention is not misused as a substitute for regular legal procedures. The judgment serves as a reminder that preventive detention should be invoked judiciously and only when necessary to protect the state's interests, maintaining a balance between individual rights and public order.