AMEENA BEGUM vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, 2023

AMEENA BEGUM vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, 2023

AMEENA BEGUM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. Citation: 2023 INSC 788 Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8510 of 2023) Date of Judgment: September 4, 2023

Factual Background

The appeal challenged a judgment and order dated June 28, 2023, of the High Court for the State of Telangana, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the Appellant (Ameena Begum) seeking a writ of habeas corpus for her husband (“Detenu”). The High Court had upheld the Detention Order dated March 24, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities… Act 1986 (“the Act”). The Detenu was categorized as a ‘Goonda’ under the Act. The Detention Order noted that a previous detention order (dated March 4, 2021) against the Detenu had been quashed by the High Court (August 16, 2021). The Commissioner asserted that the Detenu had not changed his habitual nature of committing crimes, listing 9 more offences during 2022 and 2023, and based the detention on 5 specific FIRs. These alleged offenses included cheating, extortion, robbery, outraging the modesty of women, and obstructing public servants. The Commissioner expressed satisfaction that the ordinary law was “not sufficient” to deal with the Detenu’s illegal activities. The Commissioner also noted that the Detenu was granted bail in two cases despite the prosecution filing “suitable counters” opposing bail, and believed that if set free, the Detenu would commit similar offenses detrimental to public order. The Detenu’s representation was rejected, and the Government confirmed the Detention Order, directing its continuation for 12 months.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the alleged activities of the Detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’ or if they fell within the ambit of ‘law and order’.
2. Whether the Detention Order was based on a proper application of mind to all relevant circumstances, or whether extraneous factors vitiated the order.
3. Whether recourse to preventive detention was legally justified when the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to address the situation.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Detention Order dated March 24, 2023, and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were quashed. The Court directed that the Detenu (Appellant’s husband) be released from detention forthwith.

Reason for the decision

The Court found that the Detention Order was indefensible and could not be upheld.

1. Failure to Distinguish ‘Law and Order’ from ‘Public Order’: The Court stressed that not every breach of law leads to public disorder. For an act to disturb ‘public order,’ it must impact the community or the public at large, evoking fear, panic, or insecurity, disturbing the “even tempo of the life of the community”. The offenses cited against the Detenu were deemed “separate and stray acts affecting private individuals,” which relate to ‘law and order’ rather than prejudicially affecting ‘public order’.
2. Ordinary Law was Sufficient: The detention was illegal because the existing legal framework (Penal Code and Cr. PC) was sufficient to address the offenses anticipated to be repeated by the Detenu. Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and should not be invoked as a tool for enforcing “law and order”.
3. Consideration of Extraneous Materials: The Detention Order was vitiated by the inclusion of extraneous considerations. The Commissioner referred to the Detenu’s history of offences from 2019-20 that formed the basis of a previous detention order which had already been quashed by the High Court. The Court held that relying on stale material or offenses that were part of a quashed detention order has no direct nexus or link with the immediate need for present detention.
4. Misplaced Intent Regarding Bail: The Commissioner’s strong emphasis on the Detenu being granted bail despite prosecution opposition revealed an intent to use the detention law to circumvent or substitute the punitive law. The Commissioner’s observations were reflective of an intention to detain the Detenu at any cost. If bail was wrongly granted, the State had remedies in ordinary law (appealing or seeking cancellation of bail) rather than resorting to the extraordinary measure of preventive detention.

Conclusion

The Detention Order was legally unsustainable because the activities attributed to the Detenu did not qualify as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority failed to appreciate the crucial distinction between maintenance of “law and order” and maintenance of “public order,” invoking the drastic preventive detention law where ordinary criminal law provided sufficient remedies. The appeal was allowed, and the Detenu was ordered to be released.