Subheading: Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Detention Order Under Andhra Pradesh Act
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has provided clarification on the application of the 3-month limit for preventive detention under Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed an appeal by a detenu who challenged a detention order issued under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers Act, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
The Court disagreed with the interpretation in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 13 SCC 722, which held that a preliminary detention order of three months must be issued if the State Government intends to detain a person for the maximum duration of twelve months. The Supreme Court clarified that the 3-month time limit prescribed by Article 22(4)(a) is applicable to the period before the Advisory Board’s report is obtained.
Based on the Advisory Board’s opinion, the State Government can either confirm the detention order, extend the detention for a maximum of twelve months, or release the detainee without delay, as per Section 12 and Section 13 of the Act. The Court emphasized that Article 22(4)(a) applies only at the initial stage of passing the detention order and not at the stage subsequent to the Advisory Board’s report.
The case before the Supreme Court involved a detention order spanning 12 months, which was challenged on the grounds of jurisdictional correctness and contradiction to the mandate of Section 3(2) of the Act. The Court held that the period mentioned in Section 3(2) refers to the delegation of powers and is not relevant to the duration of detention itself.
Additionally, the Court discussed the implications of specifying the period of detention in a detention order, citing the landmark judgment in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 27). It emphasized that the period of detention should only be determined after the Advisory Board returns a report justifying the detention, as fixing the period in the initial order would be against the scheme of the Act.
Regarding the issue of whether the sale of liquor is prejudicial to public order, the Court noted that while the sale of liquor may not ordinarily be considered prejudicial, if it poses a danger to public health, it becomes an activity prejudicial to public order. The Court stated that determining the sufficiency of material in this regard falls within the subjective judgment of the detaining authority.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeal, providing important clarifications on the interpretation of the 3-month limit for preventive detention and the criteria for determining activities prejudicial to public order.
Case Title: Pesala Nookaraju v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678
Written by: Shriya Ayalasomayajula, Nyaya Vidya Parishad, Intern At Legal Vidhiya
