The 3-judge bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ, has ruled that Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 pertains to the period of delegation of powers and is not relevant to the duration of a person’s detention. The Court also emphasized the distinction between law-and-order and public order issues, noting that the two can sometimes be confused. It highlighted that actions initially related to law-and-order situations can escalate into public order concerns.
The Court was addressing a case in which a person was preventively detained under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The District Collector, based on the available evidence, subjectively determined that the individual’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority considered the individual a “bootlegger” as defined in Section 2(b) of the AP Act and deemed it necessary to preventively detain them to prevent any actions that could jeopardize public order.
When the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to intervene in the preventive detention order issued by the District Collector, the person detained approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, stating that in the present case, the detaining authority explicitly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenu’s sale of liquor and its consumption by the local people were detrimental to their health.
During the proceedings, it was argued before the Court that the State Government had directed the detention of the individual for a duration of 12 months, which exceeds the three-month limit prescribed by Section 3(2) of the AP Act. The Court referred to its previous judgment in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 13 SCC 722, which interpreted Section 3(2) to mean that a detention order can initially be in force for a maximum of three months.
The Court held that the interpretation in Cherukuri Mani case was incorrect. It clarified that Section 3(2) of the AP Act is unrelated to the period of detention and instead pertains to the delegation of powers by the State Government to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police. The time period mentioned in Section 3(2) refers to the duration of the delegation of powers and has no relevance to the length of a person’s detention.
Regarding the relevance of Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Court explained that this provision states that no law providing for preventive detention can authorize the detention of a person for a period exceeding three months unless the Advisory Board, within that period, opines that there is sufficient cause for detention. If the Advisory Board does not provide its opinion within three months, the detention beyond that period becomes illegal. If the Advisory Board opines that there was no sufficient cause for detention within three months, the State Government must release the detained person immediately.
The Court emphasized that Article 22(4)(a) has no connection with the delegation of detention powers by the State Government under Section 3(2) of the Act. Under Section 9 of the Act, the State Government is required to refer the matter to the Advisory Board within three weeks of detention, regardless of whether the detention order is issued under Section 3(1) or Section 3(2). The Advisory Board must provide its opinion within seven weeks of detention.
Article 22(4)(a) applies only at the initial stage of the detention order by the State Government or a delegated officer, whose order has been approved by the State Government within 12 days of detention. It does not apply after the Advisory Board’s report. Based on the Advisory Board’s opinion, the State Government can either revoke the detention order and release the individual immediately or confirm the detention for a period not exceeding 12 months, as specified in Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, when the State Government issues a confirmatory order under Section 12 after receiving the Advisory Board’s report, it is not limited to a three-month period but can extend up to a maximum of 12 months from the date of detention.
Name- Ritika Keshari, College – Shambhunath Institute of Law, Semester – 2nd semester as a intern at Legal Vidhiya
