Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Telangana High Court Sets Aside Detention of Alleged ‘Sexual Offender’ Under PD Act, Emphasizing Distinction Between ‘Public Order’ and ‘Law and Order’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court, on November 20, 2023, set aside the detention of Md. Nizamoddin @ Viju @ Nijju, who was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, as a ‘Sexual Offender’. The Bench comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon’ble Smt. Justice K. Sujana delivered the judgment in Writ Petition No. 29522 of 2023.

Md. Nizamoddin was detained following allegations of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, leading to her pregnancy. The detention order was issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act, terming him a ‘Sexual Offender’. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that it was issued without proper subjective satisfaction and consideration of material, contending that the act was against an individual and pertained only to a ‘law and order’ problem, not affecting ‘public order’.

The Court, In its detailed judgment, emphasized the crucial distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. Citing the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed, “The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?”

The Court noted that the alleged offense by the detenu occurred within the confines of a house and did not occur in a public place. There was no evidence of the detenu engaging in acts that habitually disturbed public order. The Court held that the detaining authority failed to distinguish between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’, which led to the conclusion that the detention order was not in accordance with the law.

The judgment also granted liberty to the prosecution and the detenu to prove and disprove the allegations, respectively, in a trial court. The trial court was instructed to make decisions based on the evidence without being influenced by the observations of the High Court.

 

 Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

 SHAHIK PARVEEN  VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA 

Latest Legal News