New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the constitutional scheme that a person can’t be kept in preventive detention beyond three months period is not applicable if an advisory board confirms there is enough cause for such detention. The top court stressed that it is also well settled that whether the material was sufficient or not is not for the courts to decide by applying the objective basis as it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said: “We reiterate that the period of three months stipulated in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution is relatable to the initial period of detention up to the stage of receipt of report of the Advisory Board and does not have any bearing on the period of detention, which is continued subsequent to the confirmatory order being passed by the State Government on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board”.
The bench, in its 75-page judgment, said the continuation of the detention pursuant to the confirmatory order passed by the state government need not also specify the period of detention; neither is it restricted to a period of three months only. It said that if any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention.
“The State Government, in our view, need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order. Thus, in our view, the period of three months specified in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India is relatable to the period of detention prior to the report of the Advisory Board and not to the period of detention subsequent thereto.”, said the bench.
Article 22(4) of the Constitution deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. The apex court’s judgment came on an appeal by Pesala Nookaraju who was detained on August 25, 2022 for indulging 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 declined to entertain his plea challenging the detention order passed by the district magistrate of Kakinada. The apex court said the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor by the appellant detenu and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to their health.
The apex court said such a statement is an expression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu appellant is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. “ Not only that, the detaining authority has also recorded his satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the detenu appellant from indulging further in such activities and this satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of the credible material on record”, noted the bench.
Dismissing the appeal against the high court order, the apex court said: “It is also well settled that whether the material was sufficient or not is not for the courts to decide by applying the objective basis as it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no error, much less an error of law, in the impugned judgement of the High Court”.
