LI Network
Published on: 05 September 2023 at 12:30 IST
The Supreme Court, in the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others, has strongly criticized the Telangana Police for their disregard of citizens’ fundamental rights and their imposition of preventive detention orders that curtail individual liberty.
In a ruling delivered by Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, the Supreme Court expressed its concern over what it described as a “pernicious trend” in the state of Telangana.
It emphasized that while the nation is commemorating the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to celebrate 75 years of independence from foreign rule, certain police officers in Telangana appear to be oblivious to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, leading to unwarranted restrictions on people’s liberty and freedom.
The Court highlighted that the 1986 Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, which empowers preventive detention, should not be invoked without due consideration. It pointed out that over the years, preventive detention, originally conceived as an extraordinary measure, has been employed recklessly, becoming ordinary in practice.
To rectify this situation, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of upholding the safeguards enshrined in the Constitution, particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21, collectively forming the “golden triangle.” These safeguards should be diligently enforced to prevent the misuse of preventive detention.
The case in question involved the quashing of a preventive detention order against the husband of the appellant. The appellant had initially approached the Telangana High Court through a habeas corpus petition, which was dismissed, leading to the subsequent plea in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for constitutional courts to consider when assessing the legality of preventive detention orders.
These guidelines include ensuring that the detaining authority:
1. Has the necessary subjective satisfaction based on facts or laws.
2. Has considered all relevant circumstances and not relied on extraneous material.
3. Has exercised the power for the intended purpose and not for an unauthorized one.
4. Has acted independently without external influence.
5. Has not disabled itself from applying its mind.
6. Has relied on evidence of rational probative value.
7. Has established a link between past conduct and the need for detention.
8. Has provided clear, relevant, and precise grounds for detention.
9. Has adhered to statutory timelines.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between offenses related to “law and order” and those affecting “public order.”
It stressed the importance of clarity in detention orders and the need for detainees to understand the grounds for their detention.
In this particular case, the Court found that the authorities failed to differentiate between these two types of offenses and also failed to comply with due process.
The detention order was vague and reflected an intention to detain the individual at any cost, based on his criminal history. Notably, despite the detenu being granted bail in previous criminal cases, the state had not moved to cancel his bail.
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order and ordered the immediate release of the appellant’s husband.
