MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

'Capricious Exercise of Powers Must Be Nipped in the Bud: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders in Telangana

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the preventive detention orders against two individuals from Telangana, stressing the imperative need for responsible and judicious exercise of preventive detention powers.

The Apex Court's judgment revolved around the crucial legal aspect of preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The bench underscored the necessity of strict adherence to legal standards while exercising the exceptional power of preventive detention.

The appeals stemmed from the preventive detention of two individuals, charged with various offences including robbery and chain-snatching. Detained under the Act of 1986, they challenged the detention orders, arguing that their activities were painted as threats to public order without substantial basis.

The Court meticulously analyzed the Detaining Authority's reasoning and observed a lack of substantial connection between the alleged activities and the disturbance of public order. Justice Pardiwala remarked, "Merely because the appellant detenu has been charged for multiple offences, it cannot be said that he is in the habit of committing such offences." The Court stressed the significance of distinguishing between 'law and order' and 'public order'. The Apex Court also highlighted the role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention cases, emphasizing their duty to scrutinize detention orders rigorously.

The Court, in its verdict, quashed the detention orders against the appellants, citing insufficient grounds and a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authorities. The justices ordered the immediate release of the appellants, provided they are not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

Latest Legal News