LI Network
Published on: 18 August 2023 at 12:59 IST
The Supreme Court has issued a significant verdict stating that the constitutional provision preventing the detention of an individual in preventive Detention custody for more than three months does not apply when an advisory board confirms the necessity of such detention.
In a notable decision, the apex court also established that state governments are not obligated to review detention orders every three months once a confirmatory order has been issued following the advisory board’s report.
Article 22(4) of the Constitution addresses protection against arrest and detention in specific cases. It states, “No law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention.”
The three-month period mentioned in Article 22(4)(a) pertains to the initial period of detention up until the advisory board’s report is received. It does not impact the period of detention that continues after the state government’s confirmatory order, as per the 75-page judgment delivered by a bench comprised of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, clarified that the detention’s continuation after the state government’s confirmatory order does not necessitate specifying the duration of detention. It is not confined to a three-month period either.
If a period is mentioned in the confirmatory order, detention will extend up to that duration; if not specified, it will last for a maximum of twelve months from the date of detention. Furthermore, the state government is not required to review detention orders every three months once the confirmatory order is issued.
This verdict was delivered in response to an appeal by Pesala Nookaraju, who had been detained on August 25, 2022, for engaging in bootlegging activities under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed Nookaraju’s plea against the detention order issued by the district magistrate of Kakinada. The Supreme Court, in line with previous judgments, held that once the advisory board confirms detention, an individual can be held in preventive custody for up to 12 months.
Referring to past judgments, the Court highlighted that since the legislation does not mandate specifying the duration of detention in the order, the absence of such specification does not render the detention order invalid or illegal.
In the current case, the detaining authority explicitly stated in the grounds of detention that Nookaraju’s sale of liquor and its consumption in the locality posed health risks to the public. The Court emphasized that this statement signifies the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction that Nookaraju’s activities were detrimental to public order. It noted that the authority had determined the need to prevent Nookaraju from engaging in such activities based on credible evidence.
The Supreme Court concluded that it is not the Court’s role to evaluate the adequacy of the evidence, as it involves the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the legality of the detention.
