Read Time: 06 minutes
Court has pointed out that in quashing the order of detention, it does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction but to ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind
The Supreme Court has said inability on the part of the state’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant and remote.
The court also said the Advisory Board should not just mechanically proceed to approve detention orders but is required to keep in mind the mandate contained in Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India.
"The Advisory Board is a constitutional safeguard and a statutory authority. It functions as a safety valve between the detaining authority and the State on one hand and the rights of the detenu on the other," the bench said, adding it not a superficial creation but one of the primary constitutional safeguards available to the detenu against an order of detaining authority.
There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material, the bench has also said. "Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated," it added.
The court also asserted that while making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention.
"The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction," the court said.
Top Court accordingly quashed an order issued by the Telangana authorities in September, 2023 under the 1986 law.
The bench reminded the state government of its judgment in 'Mallada K Sri Ram Vs State of Telangana' (2023), when it asked the state government to take stock of such cases of preventive detentions.
"We hope that the State of Telangana takes what has fallen from this court very seriously and sees to it that the orders of preventive detention are not passed in a routine manner without any application of mind. We hope that the State of Telangana does not give any good reason once again to this court to observe anything further," it has said.
Case Title: Nenavathi Bujji Etc vs. The State of Telangana And Ors
Please Login or Register
