LI Network
Published on: 19 August 2023 at 13:07 IST
The Supreme Court, the court has clarified that detaining an individual based solely on their involvement in the manufacture, transportation, or sale of liquor does not inherently constitute an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The appellant, who had been preventively detained under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, challenged the detention.
The Supreme Court, comprising a three-Judge Bench including CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, deliberated upon the matter and determined that the mere engagement in liquor-related activities does not automatically qualify as prejudicial to public order. However, the Court clarified that if the liquor being dealt with is harmful to public health, it could then be considered an activity prejudicial to public order, which would warrant preventive detention.
The case was initiated after the appellant’s preventive detention under the 1986 Act, wherein he was accused of distributing, storing, transporting, and selling liquor, resulting in significant public health concerns and disruptions to peace and tranquility.
The Court highlighted that while an objective test based solely on the intrinsic nature of an act might not suffice to determine its relevance to public order, the potential consequences of the act are key. The Court emphasized that a subjective assessment of the activity’s potential to disturb public order must be undertaken by the detaining authority.
Advocate Bhabna Das represented the appellant, while Advocate Mahfooz A. Nazki appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the preventive detention in the specific case and reinforcing the need for a nuanced assessment of the potential impact of certain activities on public order before detaining individuals.
