The Supreme Court held that mere fear of a detenu committing repeat offences after being released on bail is insufficient to invoke preventive detention laws. Authorities must demonstrate a real and proximate threat to public order, not speculative apprehension.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling that reinforces personal liberty and constitutional safeguards, the Supreme Court of India has held that mere apprehension by the detaining authority that a person may commit similar offences if released on bail is insufficient to justify preventive detention.
Setting aside a detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, the Court quashed the preventive detention of a Hyderabad woman accused in multiple narcotics cases, emphasizing the crucial distinction between “law and order” and “public order.”
Background of the Case
The detention order dated March 10, 2025, was passed against the detenu (mother of the appellant) by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, branding her a “drug offender” under Section 2(f) of the 1986 Act.
Key allegations:
- Three criminal cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, involving possession and peddling of ganja
- Bail granted in some instances; bail application pending in others
- The detaining authority feared that release on bail would lead to the repetition of offences
The Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention. The detenu’s daughter then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Mere Apprehension Is Not Enough
The Court categorically held:
“Mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that if the detenu is released on bail, she would indulge in similar crimes prejudicial to public order is not a sufficient ground to order preventive detention.”
Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for cancellation of bail or to bypass regular criminal procedure.
2. Failure to Show Impact on Public Order
While the detenu was termed a “drug offender,” the Court noted that:
- The detention order did not explain how the alleged activities affected or were likely to affect public order
- Merely repeating statutory language from Section 2(a) of the Act is insufficient
- There was no material showing widespread danger to public health
“Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.”
3. Law and Order vs Public Order
Reiterating settled constitutional jurisprudence, the Court emphasized:
- Every violation of the law does not amount to a disturbance of public order
- Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and must be strictly construed
4. Improper Use of Preventive Detention Law
The Bench found that the detaining authority appeared determined to keep the detenu in custody “at any cost”, relying on past conduct from 2016 to 2023, without taking lawful steps such as:
- Seeking cancellation of bail
- Demonstrating violation of bail conditions
This approach, the Court held, amounted to circumventing ordinary criminal law.
The Supreme Court placed reliance on earlier authoritative pronouncements dealing with the scope and limits of preventive detention, including Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar.
These judgments consistently caution against the misuse of preventive detention laws to override judicial bail orders.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Hails Tamil Nadu’s Use of Preventive Detention to Tackle Cybercrime
The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the detention order dated March 10, 2025, and also set aside the judgment of the Telangana High Court dated October 28, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 12443 of 2025. The Court directed that the detenu be released forthwith, unless her custody was required in connection with any other pending proceedings.
Case Title:
Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana & Others
SLP (CRL.) NO.18223 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Preventive Detention