2022 (6) TMI 1498 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to order of prevention of detention - offence of 'robbery' under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code - habitual offender - HELD THAT - In the present case invocation of the Preventive Detention Law against the petitioner was not justified. The powers to be exercised under the Preventive Detention Law are exceptional powers which have been given to the Government for its exercise in an exceptional situation as it strikes hard on the freedom and liberty of an individual, and thus cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The distinction between law and order situation and a public order situation has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 1965 (9) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held 'Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. By using the expression maintenance of law and order the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules.' In two recent decisions BANKA SNEHA SHEELA VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA ORS. 2021 (8) TMI 1303 - SUPREME COURT ; MALLADA K SRI RAM VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA ORS 2022 (5) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT , this Court had set aside the detention orders which were passed, under the same Act, i.e., the present Telangana Act, primarily relying upon the decision in DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 1965 (9) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT and holding that the detention orders were not justified as it was dealing with a law and order situation and not a public order situation - In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenu is much a menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of detention dated 28.10.2021 and order dated 25.03.2022 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the preventive detention order.
2. Distinction between "law and order" and "public order."
3. Justification for invoking preventive detention law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Preventive Detention Order:
The appeal challenges the High Court's dismissal of a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the preventive detention order of her husband, issued on 28th October 2021 by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate. The detenu was involved in 36 gold chain snatching offences, but the detention order was based on four specific cases within the jurisdiction of Medipalli Police Station. The detenu was granted bail in all four cases due to the prosecution's failure to file charge sheets in time. The Advisory Council confirmed the detention on 13.01.2022. The Supreme Court noted that the reasons for invoking preventive detention, such as the likelihood of the detenu committing similar crimes, were not justified, as the bail was granted due to the prosecution's inability to complete investigations timely.

2. Distinction between "Law and Order" and "Public Order":
The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between "law and order" and "public order." It referred to the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar, which clarified that "public order" involves disturbances affecting the community at large, while "law and order" pertains to individual or localized disturbances. The Court observed that the detenu's actions, though criminal, did not rise to the level of disturbing public order. The detenu's involvement in four cases of chain snatching was deemed a law and order issue, not a public order issue, which would justify preventive detention.

3. Justification for Invoking Preventive Detention Law:
The Court scrutinized the justification for invoking the extraordinary powers of preventive detention. It highlighted that preventive detention laws are exceptional measures meant for exceptional situations and cannot be used routinely. The Court found that the detention order was based on the detenu being granted bail without conditions, which was a misrepresentation since the bail was default bail due to the prosecution's delay. The Court cited recent decisions, such as Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangana and Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana, where similar detention orders under the same Act were quashed for addressing law and order situations rather than public order situations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the detention order dated 28.10.2021 and the High Court's order dated 25.03.2022. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case. The Court reiterated that the State should seek remedies like bail cancellation or appeal rather than resorting to preventive detention in such cases. The decision underscores the need for careful application of preventive detention laws, distinguishing between law and order and public order to protect individual liberty and freedom.