NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 21-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1181 : 2024 INSC 239
Nenavath Bujji Etc. 
v. 
The State of Telangana and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal Nos 1738-39 of 2024)
21 March 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B Pardiwala* and 
Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention 
passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his 
associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating 
lot of fear and panic in the minds of the women folk.
Headnotes
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) – Preventive detention under – Proposed detenu 
along with his associates habitually committing  robberies, 
property theft offences and gold chain snatchings from women 
folk by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light 
continuously – Registeration of four FIRs against the detenue 
for the said offence, however, the Detaining Authority took into 
consideration only two FIRs registered within its territorial 
jurisdiction – Order of preventive detention passed – Division 
Bench of the High Court upheld the order – Correctness:
Held: Habituality of committing offence cannot, in isolation, be 
taken as a basis of any detention order; rather it has to be tested 
on the matrices of “public order” – It is only those cases where 
such habituality has created disturbance of public order that they 
could qualify as a ground to order detention – Inability on the part 
of the state’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation 
1182
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive 
detention – On facts, mere registration of the two FIRs for the 
alleged offences of robbery etc could not have been made the 
basis to invoke the provisions of the Act 1986 for the purpose of 
preventively detaining the detenue on the assumption that he is a 
“GOONDA” as defined u/s. 2(g) – What has been alleged against 
the detenu could be said to have raised the problems relating to 
law and order but it is difficult to say that they impinged on public 
order – Nothing to indicate that any such statements of people, more 
particularly the women of the concerned locality, were recorded 
so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the nefarious 
activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear 
in the minds of the people of the concerned locality – Furthermore, 
in none of the FIRs the name of the detenu has been disclosed as 
one of the accused persons – Detaining Authority could be said 
to have taken into consideration something extraneous – Thus, 
the order of detention passed against the detenu and co-detenu 
quashed and set aside – Impugned judgment and order passed 
by the High Court set aside. [Paras 31, 33, 36, 40, 64, 65]
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 – ss. 9-12 – Role and duty of the Advisory Board:
Held: Advisory Board(s) under preventive detention legislations, 
are one of the primary constitutional safeguards available to the 
detenu against an order of detention – Advisory Board performs the 
most vital duty of independently reviewing the detention order, after 
considering all the materials placed before it, or any other material 
which it deems necessary – When reviewing the detention order, 
the Advisory Board must form an opinion as to the sufficiency of 
the cause for warranting detention, then only an order of detention 
passed under the Act, 1986 can be confirmed – Framers of the 
Constitution have specifically put in place safeguards within Art. 
22 through the creation of an Advisory Board, to ens

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