AMEENA BEGUM V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & Ors.

CITATION	2023 SCC OnLine SC 1106
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	September 4th. 2023
COURT	Supreme Court
APPELLANT	Ameena Begum
RESPONDENT	The State of Telangana & Ors.
BENCH	Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta

INTRODUCTION:

The Supreme Court (SC) while expressing its concern over the increasing prevalence in Telangana of issuing preventive detention orders without due regard for the constitutional rights of individual liberty and freedom, has established a set of principles that should be adhered to by the courts when evaluating the legality of such detention orders in the matter of Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana & Others.

Preventive Detention

• It can be defined as imprisonment of a person without trial.
• In India, preventive detention is governed by various laws and regulations that empower the government to detain individuals for preventive reasons, primarily to maintain public order, national security, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.
• Some of the key laws relating to preventive detention in India include:
  • Constitutional Provision: The Constitution of India, 1950 contains provisions related to preventive detention under Article 22 that outlines the safeguards for persons who are detained, including the right to be informed of the grounds for detention, the right to legal representation, and the right to have the detention reviewed by an advisory board.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The present case arises from an order of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (Commissioner) passed against the Detenu under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Telangana Act of 1986.
2. The present detention order reveals that the Detenu was ordered detention in March 2021 under the category of White-Collar Offender and was released in August 2021 pursuant to a writ filed with the aid of using his father withinside the Telangana High Court (HC).
3. The Detenu thereafter did not mend his habitual nature of committing crimes of the nature such as outraging modesty of women, cheating, extortion, obstructing the public servants from discharging their legitimate duties etc throughout 2022 and 2023, in short succession.
4. The Commissioner, with a view to preventing the Detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order ordered detention with reason that unless he is detained beneath the detention laws, his illegal sports can’t be curbed.
5. The detente’s wife hence made the representation before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Telangana Act of 1986 in March 2023 under the grounds mentioned in Section 10 of the identical Act searching for revocation of the Detention Order.
6. She was informed by the Government that in absence of any valid grounds/reasons to set aside/revoke the Detention Order, her representation was rejected.
7. She then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the HC whereupon the parties were heard, and the judgment was delivered dismissing the writ petition.
8. Hence, the appellant made the present appeal stating that the order of detention was illegal.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:

In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant, found out senior recommendation for the appellant invited our interest to numerous paragraphs of the impugned judgment to illustrate the mistakes from which the identical suffered, each genuine as well as legal. He additionally located on file written notes containing submissions on genuine in addition to felony aspects. Relying at the government cited therein, he prayed for interference via way of means of this Court to facilitate launch of the Detenu from unlawful detention.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Dave learned senior counsel for the respondents urged that notwithstanding Mr. Luthra’s attempt to prick holes in the impugned judgment of the High Court, what is to be seen and read is the order of detention passed under section 3 and as soon as read, it turns into clean that the final end recorded withinside the impugned judgment is defensible primarily based totally at the grounds for detention as assigned via way of means of the Commissioner in his order dated 24th March, 2023 and the order dated 20th May, 2023 of the Government. Other contentions raised by Mr. Dave need not be enumerated here, for we intend to deal with the same while proceeding further.

However, to put it concisely, the argument of Mr. Dave has been that the pleasure of the detaining authority can’t be subjected to goal assessments and that the courts aren’t speculated to exercising appellate powers over such authorities; and that an order, proper on its face, passed by a competent authority in good faith is a complete answer to negative a claim such as the one raised by Mr. Luthra. Several authoritative decisions on preventive detention cases having high precedential value were cited by him and he contended that the appeal deserves nothing but dismissal.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’?
2. Whether all relevant circumstances were considered or whether extraneous factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that the Detenu is a habitual offender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained?

Incidentally, the difficulty of whether or not utility of thoughts is appeared in first ordering detention after which confirming it through persevering with such order for a length of 12 (twelve) months upon rejection of the representation filed on behalf of the Detenu by the appellant could also be answered. We no longer observe the second one and the incidental troubles if the enchantment succeeds on the primary issue.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court of India has located that a breach of regulation in all instances does now no longer result in public disorder. The two- bench determined the check of the legality of preventive detention in a petition tough the detention below the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986. 

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Surya Kant observed that a breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder. The bench referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court in Ram Manohar Lohia vs. The State of Bihar, wherein the distinction between “regulation and order” and “public order” It become found that simply as ‘public order’ become stated to recognize problems of less Gravity than the ones affecting ‘protection of State’, ‘regulation and order’ additionally comprehends problems of much less gravity than the ones affecting ‘public order’. One must imagine three concentric circles. The court held that the activities attributed to the appellant’s husband as such cannot be branded as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. And quashed the Detention Order and the judgment.

ANALYSIS:

The SC in the present case formulated guidelines for a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine following:

1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied.
2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute.
3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorized by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires.
4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body.
5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case.
6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate.
7. The satisfaction has arrived at bearing in mind the existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale.
8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached.
9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests is not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation.
10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.

CONCLUSION:

The SC under the present facts of the case found that the acts of the detenu did not qualify as those affecting maintenance of public order as required under the Act and thus quashed the impugned detention order and the judgment of the HC thereby allowing the appeal.

Written by Mihika Madan an intern under legal vdihiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.