The distinction between a disturbance to ‘law and order’ and a disturbance to ‘public order’ has been clearly settled by a Constitution Bench in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. Court has held, every ‘disorder’ does not meet threshold of a disturbance to ‘public order’, unless it affects community at large.

Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 415 examined a similar factual situation of an alleged offence of cheating gullible persons as a ground for Preventive Detention under The Telangana Act of 1986. Court held, such an apprehension cannot meet standards prescribed for a Preventive Detention unless there is a demonstrable threat to maintenance of ‘public order’.

Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150 held, a Preventive Detention Order passed without examining a ‘live and proximate link’ is tantamount to punishment without trial.

The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances. In last 5 years, this Court has quashed over 5 Detention Orders under The Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying standard for maintenance of ‘public order’.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telengana, [Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2022].

_____

The purpose of Preventive Detention, as said by Hon’ble A.N. Ray, CJ in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2154 is to prevent greater evil of elements imperiling security and safety of a State and welfare of Nation. With passage of time, and expansion and development of law, it is no longer law, a Preventive Detention Action, howsoever lawful it might appear on its face, cannot be invalidated by Constitutional Courts.

“In last 5 years, this Court has quashed over 5 Detention Orders under The Telangana Act of 1986,” observed Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424. Interference by this Court with Detention Orders, routinely issued under The Telangana Act of 1986, seems to continue unabated. We cannot uphold present Detention Order.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8510 of 2023] decided on 04.09.2023.

_____

Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587 was confronted with almost an identical situation. As observed by this Court in Ameena Begum, habituality of committing an offence cannot, in isolation, be taken as a basis of any ‘detention order’. It is only those cases where such habituality has created disturbance of ‘public order’, they could qualify as a ground for any ‘detention order’.

State instead of proceeding to pass an ‘order of detention’ could have approached Courts concerned for ‘cancellation of bail’.

We hope, State of Telengana takes what has fallen from this Court very seriously and sees to it, ‘orders of preventive detention’ are not passed in a routine manner without any application of mind.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Nenavathi Bujji v. State of Telangana, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1738-39 of 2024] decided on 21.03.2024.

_____

If somebody commits a brutal murder within four corners of a house, it will not be amounting to a threat to ‘public order’. As against this, if a person in a public space, where a number of people are present, creates a ruckus by his behaviour and continues with such activities, in a manner to create a terror in minds of public at large, it would amount to a threat to ‘public order’. Though, in a given case, there may not be even a physical attack.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Arjun v. State of Maharashtra, [Special Leave Petition (Crimunal) No.12516 of 2024] decided on 11.12.2024.

_____

Also see, Joy Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16893 of 2024] decided on 06.03.2025.