"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

'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.

Similar News