MALLADA K SRI RAM versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 04-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 5
5
MALLADA K SRI RAM
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No 561 of 2022)
APRIL 04, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Preventive Detention – Telangana Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders,Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed
Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food
Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled
Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders,
Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders,
Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders
Act,1986 – s.3(2) and 2(x) – Order of detention u/s.3(2) – It was
alleged that detenu was a ‘white-collar offender’ u/s.2(x) who
cheated gullible job aspirants which was prejudicial to
“maintenance of public order “– Detenu had moved bail applications
in two cases in which he was in judicial custody and the Magistrate
had granted him conditional bail, however, as recorded in the
detention order, it was apprehended that he may violate the bail
conditions while committing similar offences – Detention order
challenged – Held: Order of detention, on facts, was evidently based
on stale material and demonstrated non-application of mind on part
of the detaining authority to the fact that the conditions imposed on
the detenu, while granting bail, were duly fulfilled and there was
no incidence of further violation – High Court failed to probe the
existence of a live and proximate link between the past cases and
the need to detain the detenu – Mere apprehension of a breach of
law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely
affecting the “maintenance of public order” – Apprehension of a
disturbance to public order owing to a crime reported over seven
months prior to the detention order had no basis in fact – Nature of
allegations against the detenu are grave – However, personal liberty
of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive
detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
proceeding – Clear example of non-application of mind to material
circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of
the detaining authority – Detention order accordingly quashed and
set aside – Public Order – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.22.
Preventive Detention – Detention orders under Telangana Act
of 1986 – Callous exercise of exceptional powers by detaining
authorities and respondent-State – Incorrect application of standard
for maintenance of public order and reliance on stale materials
while passing orders of detention – Respondents directed to take
stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory
Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate fairness of the
detention orders against lawful standards – Telangana Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed
Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food
Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled
Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders,
Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders,
Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders
Act,1986.
Law and Order – Distinction between disturbance to law and
order and disturbance to public order – Held: Every disorder does
not meet the threshold of a disturbance to public order, unless it
affects the community at large – Public Order.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Writ jurisdiction under
– Scope – Held: While the ordinary procedural hierarchy among
courts must be respected, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction u/Art.
226 extends to protecting the personal liberty of persons who
demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State was being
weaponised for using the force of criminal law.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.22 – Object and purpose of
– Held: Art.22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and
extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the
exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a
draconian and arbitrary exercise of state authority – Preventive
Detention.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
An order of detention was passed against the detenu under Section
3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Dacoits, Drug

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.