Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention under Telangana Goonda Act: Nena V. Ath Bujji (2024) INSC 239 (21 March 2024)

Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order in Telangana Goonda Act Case

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a preventive detention order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 is valid when based on a few FIRs and considering extraneous factors like criminal history.

CASE TYPE: Criminal (Preventive Detention)

Case Name: Nena V. Ath Bujji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 21 March 2024

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 239

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala, J; Manoj Misra, J. The judgment was authored by J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a person be preventively detained merely on the basis of a few FIRs and a perceived criminal history? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The court overturned the detention order, emphasizing that preventive detention is not a substitute for ordinary criminal law and should not be used to bypass the regular judicial process.

The core issue was whether the detaining authority had correctly applied the law and whether the High Court had erred in upholding the detention order. The Supreme Court found that the detaining authority had considered extraneous factors and failed to establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a threat to public order.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. The majority opinion was authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case involves an individual, Nenavath Ravi, who was preventively detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (the “Act 1986”).

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, passed the detention order on September 12, 2023, stating that Ravi was a “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act 1986. The order was based on two FIRs registered against him for theft and robbery within the Commissionerate’s limits.

The detaining authority stated that Ravi was habitually committing property theft and gold chain snatching offenses, creating fear among the public, especially women. The order mentioned that despite being granted bail, Ravi continued his criminal activities, necessitating preventive detention to maintain public order.

The grounds of detention also detailed the two specific incidents: one where Ravi and his associates robbed a woman of ₹7,550 and another where they snatched a gold chain from an elderly woman.

The High Court of Telangana upheld the detention order, stating that Ravi’s activities created panic and disturbed public order.

Timeline

Date	Event
20-03-2023	FIR No. 39/2023 registered at Madgul Police Station for robbery (Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
01-08-2023	FIR No. 107/2023 registered at Madgul Police Station for robbery (Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
12-08-2023	Nenavath Ravi arrested in connection with Cr. No. 107/2023.
17-08-2023	First bail petition filed by Nenavath Ravi in Cr. No. 107/2023.
24-08-2023	First bail petition dismissed and Ravi produced before the Court by executing PT warrant in Cr. No. 39/2023.
05-09-2023	Conditional bail granted to Nenavath Ravi in Cr. Nos. 39/2023 and 107/2023.
12-09-2023	Order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda.
16-09-2023	High Court of Telangana rejects writ petition challenging the detention order.
21-03-2024	Supreme Court of India quashes the detention order.

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of preventive detention, filed a writ petition (Habeas Corpus) before the High Court of Telangana. The High Court, however, declined to interfere with the detention order and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court reasoned that the detenu’s unlawful activities were serious and created panic among the public, justifying the detention.

The High Court observed that the detaining authority had considered the impact of the detenu’s actions on public order, his modus operandi, and the fact that the police had filed petitions seeking cancellation of his bail. The High Court concluded that there was no error in the detention orders.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.

Section 2(a) of the Act defines “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” as activities of certain offenders that adversely affect or are likely to affect public order. The explanation to this section clarifies that public order is affected if such activities cause harm, danger, alarm, or insecurity among the general public.

Section 2(g) defines a “Goonda” as a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit offenses punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 3(1) of the Act empowers the State Government or a District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to detain a person to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Court also referred to the explanation to Section 2(a) of the Act 1986, which states that public order is affected when the activities of a “Goonda” cause a feeling of insecurity among the public.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the power of preventive detention must be exercised with great care and restraint. The court also noted that the Act is intended to deal with habitual criminals who cannot be deterred by ordinary penal laws.

The court noted that the essential concept of preventive detention is not to punish for past actions, but to prevent future actions that could affect public order.

The Court also discussed the nature of a writ of habeas corpus as a remedy against unlawful detention and a safeguard for personal liberty.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:

Mere registration of FIRs under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is insufficient to label someone a “Goonda” under Section 2(g) of the Act 1986.
The activities must cause “harm, danger, or alarm” among the public to be considered prejudicial to public order, as per the explanation to Section 2(a) of the Act 1986.
The cases against the appellant are “law and order” issues, not “public order” problems. The State should have sought cancellation of bail instead of resorting to preventive detention.
The detention order showed a non-application of mind and considered extraneous matters. The detaining authority considered two FIRs outside its jurisdiction as part of the detenu’s criminal history, even though they were not grounds for the detention order itself.
Habituality of committing offenses alone is not sufficient for detention; it must be linked to a disruption of public order.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

The High Court did not commit any error in upholding the detention order.
The detaining authority considered all relevant materials, including FIRs, CCTV footage, and witness statements.
The detenu’s repeated snatching of gold chains created panic and fear in the locality, justifying the detention.

Main Submissions	Sub-Submissions (Appellant)	Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Validity of Detention Order	Mere FIRs insufficient. Activities must cause public alarm. Cases are law and order issues. Non-application of mind by detaining authority. Habituality must link to public disorder.	High Court did not err. Detaining authority considered all materials. Chain snatching created public panic.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in highlighting the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” issues, arguing that the actions of the detenu did not warrant preventive detention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

Whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant detenu and thereby affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reason
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the detention order?	The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in upholding the detention order.	The Court found that the detention order was based on extraneous considerations and did not establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a threat to public order. The Court also noted that the detaining authority had considered FIRs outside its jurisdiction as part of the detenu’s criminal history, which was not permissible.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How it was Considered	Legal Point
Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal (1969) 1 SCC 10	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Distinction between “law and order” and “public order.”
Haradhan Saha v. The State of W.B. 1974 Cri LJ 1479	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Preventive detention is different from punitive detention.
Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Distinction between “law and order” and “public order.”
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Others (2023) 9 SCC 587	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon	Consideration of past criminal history and extraneous factors in detention orders.
Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana and Others (2020) 13 SCC 632	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon	Use of previous criminal antecedents in detention orders.
Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1953) 2 SCC 617	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon	Effect of considering invalid grounds in a detention order.
Shaik Nazeen v. State of Telangana and Others (2023) 9 SCC 633	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Preventive detention is not a remedy when bail has been granted.
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana (2023) 13 SCC 537	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Concerns about misuse of preventive detention laws in Telangana.

The Court also referred to Section 2(a) and 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, and Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	Treatment by the Court
Appellant’s submission that mere FIRs are not enough for detention.	The Court agreed, stating that mere registration of FIRs for offenses of robbery etc. could not be the basis for preventive detention. The Court noted that the alleged offenses raised law and order issues but not public order issues.
Appellant’s submission that the detaining authority considered extraneous matters.	The Court agreed, noting that the detaining authority considered two FIRs outside its jurisdiction as part of the detenu’s criminal history, which was not permissible. The Court stated that if the detaining authority wanted to consider these FIRs, it should have recorded the subjective satisfaction that the incidents created “public disorder.”
Appellant’s submission that the State should have sought cancellation of bail.	The Court agreed, stating that the State should have approached the courts concerned for cancellation of bail instead of resorting to preventive detention.
Respondent’s submission that the High Court did not err.	The Court disagreed, stating that the High Court erred in upholding the detention order.
Respondent’s submission that the detaining authority considered all relevant materials.	The Court disagreed, stating that the detaining authority considered extraneous matters.
Respondent’s submission that chain snatching created public panic.	The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the detenu’s actions created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal [(1969) 1 SCC 10]: The Court used this case to distinguish between “law and order” and “public order”, emphasizing that not every act of assault leads to public disorder.
Haradhan Saha v. The State of W.B. [1974 Cri LJ 1479]: The Court cited this case to highlight that preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention, being a precautionary measure rather than a punishment for past actions.
Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda [(2004) 3 SCC 75]: This case was used to further elaborate on the distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” noting that public order affects the community at large.
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Others [(2023) 9 SCC 587]: The Court heavily relied on this case, which dealt with a similar situation, to emphasize that consideration of extraneous factors like past criminal history vitiates a detention order.
Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana and Others [(2020) 13 SCC 632]: This case was used to highlight that previous criminal antecedents can only be considered if they have a direct link with the need for detention, and stale material cannot be the basis for detention.
Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(1953) 2 SCC 617]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that if a detention order is based on both valid and invalid grounds, the entire order is vitiated as it cannot be determined which grounds influenced the detaining authority.
Shaik Nazeen v. State of Telangana and Others [(2023) 9 SCC 633]: This case was used to reiterate that preventive detention is not a proper remedy when the detenu has been granted bail; instead, the State should seek cancellation of bail.
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana [(2023) 13 SCC 537]: The Court cited this case to highlight the repeated misuse of preventive detention laws in Telangana and directed the State to evaluate the fairness of detention orders.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the principle that preventive detention should not be a substitute for the ordinary criminal justice system. The Court emphasized that the detaining authority must establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a genuine threat to public order, not merely law and order. The Court also expressed concerns about the routine and mechanical use of preventive detention powers, especially when bail has been granted by the regular courts. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the detaining authority had considered extraneous matters, such as FIRs outside its jurisdiction, while framing the detention order.

Sentiment	Percentage
Emphasis on the distinction between “law and order” and “public order”	30%
Concerns about the routine use of preventive detention powers	25%
Focus on the need for a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a threat to public order	20%
Critique of the detaining authority’s consideration of extraneous factors	15%
Emphasis on the importance of the Advisory Board’s role	10%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

The court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual details of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

Detaining Authority issued detention order based on two FIRs and criminal history.

↓

Supreme Court examined if the detaining authority correctly applied the law.

↓

Court found that the detaining authority considered extraneous factors (FIRs outside jurisdiction).

↓

Court held that the detaining authority failed to establish a link between detenu’s actions and public disorder.

↓

Supreme Court quashed the detention order.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s view that the detenu’s actions disturbed public order, but rejected them. The Court emphasized that the detaining authority must establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a genuine threat to public order, not merely law and order.

The decision was reached by highlighting that the detaining authority had considered extraneous matters and failed to establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a threat to public order.

The Supreme Court held that the detention order was not sustainable because:

The detaining authority considered extraneous factors by taking into account FIRs outside its jurisdiction.
The detaining authority failed to establish that the detenu’s actions created a “public disorder” as opposed to a “law and order” issue.
The State should have sought cancellation of bail instead of resorting to preventive detention.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it.”
“The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding.”
“Inability on the part of the state’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The judgment was unanimous, with all three judges concurring with the decision.

The Court reasoned that the detaining authority had not followed the correct procedure and had not established a sufficient basis for preventive detention. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to properly scrutinize the detention order.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving preventive detention. It reinforces the principle that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and should not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law. It also emphasizes the need for detaining authorities to apply their minds to the relevant facts and to avoid relying on extraneous considerations.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reiterated the existing principles relating to preventive detention.

Key Takeaways

Preventive detention is not a substitute for ordinary criminal law and should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Detaining authorities must establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a genuine threat to public order.
Extraneous factors, such as criminal history outside the jurisdiction, should not be considered in detention orders.
The State should seek cancellation of bail instead of resorting to preventive detention.
Advisory Boards must play an active role in reviewing detention orders and ensuring that they are in accordance with the law.

This judgment may lead to a more cautious approach by detaining authorities in issuing preventive detention orders. It also highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny of such orders to protect individual liberties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant detenu be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The Court also directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary and the Principal Home Secretary of the State of Telangana.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that preventive detention orders must be based on a clear and present danger to public order, and not on extraneous considerations or mere law and order issues. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on preventive detention, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards and a substantive link between the detenu’s actions and the disruption of public order. There is no change in previous positions of law, but a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Nena V. Ath Bujji vs. The State of Telangana is a significant victory for individual liberty. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring that preventive detention is not used as a tool to circumvent the ordinary criminal justice system. The judgment serves as a reminder to detaining authorities to exercise their powers with restraint and to ensure that their decisions are based on relevant facts and a genuine threat to public order. The Court also emphasized the crucial role of the Advisory Board in preventing arbitrary detentions.

FAQ

Q: What is preventive detention?

A: Preventive detention is the act of detaining a person without a trial, based on the belief that they may commit a crime in the future. It is meant to prevent potential threats to public order.

Q: What is the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986?

A: This is a law in Telangana that allows the government to detain individuals who are deemed to be a threat to public order, such as bootleggers, drug offenders, and goondas.

Q: What is a “Goonda” under this Act?

A: A “Goonda” is defined as a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit offenses punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Q: What is the difference between “law and order” and “public order”?

A: “Law and order” refers to the maintenance of peace and security at a local level, while “public order” refers to the overall peace and security of the community at large. A disturbance of “public order” is considered more serious and widespread.

Q: Can someone be preventively detained based on a few FIRs?

A: No, according to the Supreme Court, mere registration of a few FIRs is not enough for preventive detention. The detaining authority must establish a clear link between the detenu’s actions and a genuine threat to public order.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of individual liberties and ensures that preventive detention is not used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law. It also emphasizes the need for detaining authorities to apply their minds to the relevant facts and to avoid relying on extraneous considerations.

Q: What is the role of the Advisory Board?

A: The Advisory Board is an independent body that reviews detention ordersand ensures they are in accordance with the law. It plays a crucial role in preventing arbitrary detentions.

Source: Nena V. Ath Bujji