Preventive Detention Statute III

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

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 Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.