The Telangana High Court quashed the detention and subsequent proclamation order against a garment merchant hailing from Maharashtra.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha emphasized that the detention order lacked jurisdiction and proper application of legal principles.

The Bench said, "It is regrettable that despite the directives of the Apex Court and this Court, preventive detention continues to be routinely invoked by the authorities in the State of Telangana."

"Preventive detention should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. It is only when an individual's actions have the potential to affect Public Order that preventive detention may be warranted," the Bench added.

Emphasizing that the officers issuing detention orders should be properly educated, the Court said, "It is imperative that the officers responsible for issuing detention orders are properly educated about the severe nature of preventive detention. Additionally, it is expected that authorities will accurately distinguish between situations involving Law and Order and those involving Public Order before ordering detention."

The case stemmed from allegations against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Section 66C of the IT Act, dating back to 2020. Despite being granted bail in related cases, a detention order was passed against the petitioner in June 2021, subsequently followed by a proclamation order in 2023 after the petitioner allegedly evaded notice.

The Petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that they were arbitrary and devoid of legal basis, particularly highlighting that the Prevention of Detention Act, 1986, invoked by the State, does not extend jurisdiction over individuals residing outside Telangana.

The State contended that the petitioner's alleged offenses posed a serious threat to public order, citing previous criminal activities and failure to surrender despite court orders.

However, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner had obtained a stay on the surrender order and had not violated any bail conditions, affirming that any breach of bail terms should be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

The Court underscored that preventive detention powers are extraordinary and should only be invoked in rare and exceptional circumstances, with strict adherence to constitutional safeguards. It criticized the issuance of the detention order for its failure to specify the duration of detention and for being outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

"The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and should not be exercised lightly," remarked the Bench, emphasizing the need for authorities to distinguish between offenses affecting public order and those affecting law and order. The Court further said, "Tracing their origin to the colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse. Article 22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of state authority. The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority."

Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the Petitioner, asserting that the detention order was issued without due application of mind and lacked legal validity. "There was no necessity for the detaining authority to issue the impugned detention order. We are of the considered view that the regular laws of the land were adequate to address this matter, and thus, resorting to preventive detention laws was unwarranted and is liable to be set aside," the Court said.

While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court ordered, "In the light of the above discussion, noting that the petitioner herein is already enlarged on bail on 08.03.2021, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Preventive Detention Order dated 02.06.2021 bearing No. 65/PD CELL/CYB/2021 and also Proclamation Notice dated 24.01.2023 bearing No.65/PD.Cell/CYB/2021-23 issued by 2nd respondent, are hereby set aside."

Cause Title: Chandrakanth Siddharth Kamble v. The State of Telangana and Others

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.Venkatesh, Advocate R.Anurag

Respondent: Advocate Swaroop Oorella (Special Government Pleader)

Click here to read/download the Order

Justice K. LakshmanJustice P Sree SudhaTelangana High Court

Sukriti Mishra