A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant also took a stern view of what it termed “callous exercise” of preventive detention powers by the State of Telangana, noting that in the last five years, the apex court had quashed over five detention orders by Telangana.
It also noted that at least ten detention orders by Telangana government were set aside by the High Court of Telangana in the last one year itself.
“These numbers evince a callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the detaining authorities and the respondent-state. We direct the respondents to take stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against lawful standards,” the Court directed.
In the present case, the Court noted that the accused-appellant had been detained on the basis of two first information reports (FIRs) registered against him and the same cannot be the sole basis to keep an accused under preventive detention.
“The nature of the allegations against the detenu are grave. However, the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding,” the Court observed.
The bench was hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Telangana High Court which had dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition moved by the appellant challenging his order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1986 (Telangana Act).
Source: Barandbench
