2024 (1) TMI 4 - SC - Indian Laws

Length / Duration of detention - preventive detention - judicial reviewability - White Collar Offender - local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police. Detention Order passed under section 3(2) of the Act - whether such subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner stands scrutiny on application of the requisite tests? - HELD THAT - 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. We are also constrained to observe that preventive detention laws an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of law and order . This, for the reason that, the Commissioner despite being aware of the earlier judgment and order of the High Court dated 16th August, 2021 passed the Detention Order ostensibly to maintain public order without once more appreciating the difference between maintenance of law and order and maintenance of public order . The order of detention is, thus, indefensible. Whether there was proper application of mind to all relevant circumstances or whether consideration of extraneous factors has vitiated the Detention Order? - HELD THAT - Whenever an accused is tried for an offence under a penal law which carries a maximum sentence, the Court is obliged while imposing sentence to apply its mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case and to either impose maximum sentence or a lesser sentence. It has, therefore, a discretion regarding imposition of sentence - 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. In our opinion, the relevant provisions of the Act have to be so read as to inhere a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. 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. Detention being a restriction on the invaluable right to personal liberty of an individual and if the same were to be continued for the maximum period, it would be eminently just and desirable that such restriction on personal liberty, in the least, reflects an approach that meets the test of Article 14. The detention order not upheld - As a consequence, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court too cannot be upheld. The Detention Order and the impugned judgment and order stand quashed. The appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Detention Order and its impact on public order.
2. Consideration of relevant circumstances and extraneous factors.
3. Proper application of mind by the detaining authority.
4. Duration of detention and the role of the Advisory Board.

Summary:

Legality of the Detention Order and its Impact on Public Order:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Detention Order against the appellant's husband, issued under section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, was justified. The Court noted that the Detention Order was based on five distinct offences, including crimes involving cheating, obstructing a public official, and dacoity. However, the Court emphasized that not all breaches of law lead to public disorder. The Court cited precedents distinguishing between "law and order" and "public order," noting that public order disturbances must impact the broader community, causing fear or insecurity. The Court found that the offences cited in the Detention Order were separate acts affecting private individuals and did not disturb public order. The Court concluded that the existing legal framework was sufficient to address the offences, and the preventive detention law was improperly invoked.

Consideration of Relevant Circumstances and Extraneous Factors:
The Court scrutinized whether the Detention Order was influenced by extraneous factors. The Commissioner had considered the Detenu's past criminal history, including offences from 2019-2020, which had already been quashed by the High Court in a previous order. The Court observed that the Commissioner's reference to these past offences indicated an improper influence on his decision. The Court reiterated that habituality of committing offences must be tested on the metrics of public order and found that the Commissioner's reliance on past offences rendered the Detention Order invalid.

Proper Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The Court examined whether the detaining authority applied its mind independently and rationally. It found that the Commissioner's observations in the Detention Order reflected an attempt to detain the Detenu at any cost, without resorting to due process. The Court noted that the Commissioner's belief in the imminent possibility of the Detenu committing similar offences was not supported by any violation of bail conditions or non-compliance with legal procedures. The Court concluded that the Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and lacked proper application of mind.

Duration of Detention and the Role of the Advisory Board:
The Court addressed the issue of the maximum period of detention and the role of the Advisory Board. The Court emphasized that the Government must apply its mind to the specific facts and circumstances of each case when deciding the duration of detention. The Court criticized the routine practice of continuing detention for the maximum period of 12 months without proper justification. The Court held that the Government's discretion in fixing the period of detention must be exercised reasonably and fairly, reflecting the objective sought to be fulfilled.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the Detention Order and the impugned judgment of the High Court, directing the immediate release of the appellant's husband from detention. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards and ensuring that preventive detention laws are not misused to circumvent ordinary legal procedures.