Preventive detention only to prevent public disorder; Cannot be invoked over apprehension of breach of law and order: Supreme Court

By - Mayur Jain*

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment while quashing a preventive detention order held that preventive detention cannot be treated as a substitute for the ordinary law and “absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the detenu may have committed”.

The detenu had done fraud and had committed white-collar crimes by offering the complainant advice to invest money in newly upcoming companies and insisted him to invest money. The complainant had also contended that the detenu had cheated many people by collecting more than Rs. 50 lakhs through various payment methods in the guise of providing more profit.

According to the contentions of the complainant, 5 FIRs had been filed against the detenu, all the said FIRs being under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC. High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, passed the detention order under section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.

Also Read - Delay in compassionate appointment by government causing more grief to the family is unjustifiable: Bombay High Court.

Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Telangana raised contentions that the detention order was totally a correct course of action as the detenu was a habitual offender and would definitely hamper the public order and commit similar offences in future. Ranjit Kumar submitted that “there is no doubt that he had infringed ‘public order’ as defined by the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act and had disturbed the even tempo of life of persons who were cheated by him and were likely to be cheated by him it was important to preventively detain him.”

Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised submitted against the detention order that, “there is no proximate or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of the Detention Order, as the last act that was complained of, which is discernible from the first 3 FIRs was not in accordance with the date of the Detention Order.” He also added that the detention order was totally perverse.

Also Read - Doctrine of 'No Work Should Go Unpaid' to be applied to all doctors operating under AYUSH and CHS: Supreme Court.

“…it is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the Detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. This may be a good ground to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute,” the bench held. 

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Mayur Jain is a 5^th year student pursuing B.A.LL.B. from Amity Law School Delhi.