Preventive Detention Not Punitive but Protective—Habitual Drug Offender Cannot Claim Immunity Merely Because Law Is in Motion: Telangana High Court Upholds Detention of Woman under PD Act

“Public Health Is an Integral Part of Public Order—Drug Peddling Destabilises Society and Endangers Youth” - Telangana  High Court upheld the preventive detention of Smt. Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai, a woman repeatedly accused of ganja peddling, invoking Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. In Writ Petition No. 12443 of 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by her daughter, Smt. Roshni Devi, and refused to interfere with the State’s decision to detain the accused for twelve months.

Rejecting the argument that the detenu was already facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court observed:

“Preventive detention is not a penalty for past activities but a measure of pre-emption—it is invoked not to punish, but to prevent.”

The Bench held that Aruna Bai's continuous involvement in the illicit ganja trade, including seizures in three separate cases involving 2.165 kg, 1.53 kg, and 20.5 kg of ganja, posed a sustained threat to public order and health, particularly among vulnerable groups like students and youth.

“Liberty Under Article 21 is Not Absolute—State’s Power to Preventively Detain is Constitutionally Recognised When Public Health is at Stake”

The Court began by framing the core issue—whether a preventive detention order can be sustained when the alleged offences are already being prosecuted under ordinary criminal law. It answered the question unambiguously:

“When ordinary prosecution is found to be insufficient to deter unlawful activity, and when repeated offences cause alarm or danger to society, preventive detention becomes not only lawful but necessary.”

The petitioner argued that the detention was unjust as the detenu had not been convicted, that some cases were based only on co-accused confessions, and that conditional bail was already in operation. However, the Court found that these were not grounds to quash a detention validly passed under Section 3(2) of the PD Act, noting:

“The possibility of securing bail and the pattern of repeated drug offences were duly considered by the Detaining Authority—subjective satisfaction was backed by concrete material.”

Citing Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, the Bench held that even pending prosecution is no bar to preventive detention if there is compelling material justifying it.

“Drug Peddling Is Not Just a Crime, It’s a Societal Epidemic—Habitual Offenders Must Be Preventively Isolated”

Rebutting the petitioner’s contention that there was no direct recovery from the detenu in some of the cases, the Court pointed to the volume, frequency, and consistency of her involvement in narcotics:

“The conduct of the detenu is neither isolated nor incidental. The pattern of repeated and increasing drug peddling clearly disrupts public order and endangers public health.”

The Court emphasized that under the explanation to Section 2(a) of the PD Act, public order includes danger to life or public health. It observed:

“When the activities of an offender cause widespread danger to life or health, especially among the youth, the requirement of ‘public order’ under preventive detention law stands satisfied.”

Referring to chemical examination reports and expert medical opinions about the effects of ganja on the human body, the Court noted that the narcotic trade was not only illegal but had direct implications for the well-being of future generations.

“Preventive Detention Must Not Only Restrain, But Also Reform—A Chance at Rehabilitation is Embedded in the Law”

Perhaps most significantly, the Court spoke about the dual purpose of preventive detention—not merely isolation, but moral and social reformation. It observed:

“The period of detention serves not merely as a measure of restraint, but also as a means to facilitate the detenu’s reformation. Her repeated involvement shows a pattern that needs to be broken not just legally, but socially.”

This humanistic dimension was reinforced in the Court’s remarks that while the detaining order was justified, the purpose must also be to offer the offender an opportunity to introspect and return to a lawful path.

“Public Health Is Constitutionally Protected Under Article 21 and 47—State Is Duty-Bound to Act Against Drug Menace”

In a strongly worded observation that placed narcotics within the constitutional scheme, the Court invoked Article 21 and Article 47, holding:

“The wealth of a nation ultimately depends upon the health and well-being of its citizens. Any activity that endangers public health, particularly through narcotic substances, strikes at the very root of societal stability.”

Noting that the detenu’s activities were clearly prejudicial to the constitutional goals of ensuring health and safety for all, the Court justified the State’s invocation of preventive detention powers.

“Bail Does Not Negate Preventive Detention—Repetitive Conduct Justifies State’s Preventive Action”

The Court dismissed the argument that since the detenu had secured conditional bail, preventive detention was unwarranted. It held:

“Grant of bail cannot limit the State’s preventive powers if the detenu’s release could result in further threats to public order.”

The Bench underscored that subjective satisfaction, when based on relevant material, cannot be supplanted by judicial review unless shown to be perverse or procedurally defective. In this case, neither procedural irregularities nor arbitrariness could be established.

The Advisory Board had reviewed the detention within the statutory timelines, heard all stakeholders, and confirmed the detention as valid. The Government subsequently approved it for a period of 12 months beginning 11 March 2025.

“Drug Offenders Undermine the Moral and Physical Fabric of Society—Courts Cannot Be Passive Spectators”

In conclusion, the Telangana High Court refused to intervene, remarking:

“There is no scope for interference in the detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the PD Act, when supported by material facts and confirmed by the Advisory Board.”

The writ petition, along with all connected applications, was dismissed.

The ruling not only affirms the State’s duty to protect its citizens from the harm caused by repeat drug offenders, but also marks an important reiteration of the preventive detention jurisprudence in the context of narcotics—a menace that has grown exponentially in both scale and social impact.

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025