Vide the impugned judgment, a writ petition instituted by the appellant seeking a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and the order of detention dated 24 March, 2023 2 (“Detention Order”, hereafter) of the appellant’s husband (“Detenu”, hereafter), impugned therein, upheld. and he is a ‘Goonda’ as defined in clause (g) of Section 2” of the Act (bold in original).
After referring to the bail petitions filed by the Detenu in Cr.
No.18/2023 of Golconda PS and Cr.No.35/2023 of Falaknuma PS and bail having been granted despite suitable counters filed by the prosecution resulting in the Detenu’s release from jail, the Commissioner observed as follows: “As seen from his past criminal history, background and antecedents and also his habitual nature of committing crimes one 4 after the other and his efforts to come out of the prison, I strongly believe that if such a habitual criminal is set free, his activities would not be safe to the society and there is an imminent possibility of his committing similar offences by violating the bail conditions in one of the cases which would be detrimental to public order, unless he is preventively detained from doing so by an appropriate order of detention.”
This was followed by the order detaining the Detenu, treated as a ‘Goonda’, from the date of service of same with a direction to lodge him in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/appellant-convicted-for-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder/
The Advisory Board vide a report dated 29 April, 2023 opined that “there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu…”, whereupon the Government issued an order dated 20 May, 2023 under sub-section (1) of section 12 read with section 13 of the Act confirming the Detention Order and directing that the detention be continued for a period of 12 months from the date of detention, i.e., 27 January, 2023 (sic, 27 March, 2023).
Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant invited our attention to several paragraphs of the impugned judgment to demonstrate the errors from which the same suffered, both factual as well as legal. Prior to venturing to decide the contentious issue as to whether the Detention Order is legal or not, we consider it necessary to remind ourselves of the purpose for which preventive detention in a particular case could be ordered, the requisites of a valid detention order and the scope of judicial reviewability of such order.
Nonetheless, the protection so guaranteed is subject to clause (3) of Article 22 which operates as an exception to clauses (1) and (2) and ordains that nothing therein shall apply to, inter alia, any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/ownership-dispute-commissioners-order-and-revenue-documents/
Since an order of preventive detention has the effect of invading one’s personal liberty merely on suspicion and is not viewed as punitive, and the facts on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based for ordering preventive detention is not justiciable, meaning thereby that it is not open to the Constitutional Courts to enquire whether the detaining authority has erroneously or correctly reached a satisfaction on every question of fact and/or has passed an order of detention which is not justified on facts, resulting in narrowing down of the jurisdiction to grant relief, it is only just and proper that such drastic power is not only invoked in appropriate cases but is also exercised responsibly, rationally and reasonably. At this stage, a survey of certain authorities outlining the contours of judicial reviewability of an order of preventive detention may not be inapt.
Case Title: AMEENA BEGUM Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002706-002706 / 2023
