Preventive Detention Quashed for Lack of Material Showing Threat to Public Order in Drug Case

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the appeal by the daughter of the detenu against a detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The challenge arose from a detention order dated 10.03.2025 confirmed on 15.04.2025, and the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the order.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order, holding that the preventive detention was unsustainable for want of material to show how the detenu's acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court noted that mere reproduction of statutory language and reference to antecedent crimes did not satisfy the requirement of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1986 enables the Government, if it is satisfied that a drug offender ought to be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order to make an order of preventive detention. The expression 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' has been defined by Section 2(a) of the Act 1986. As per the Explanation to the said provision, if any of the activities of the person concerned causes or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a section thereof or in case of a grave widespread danger to life or public health is likely to be caused, such power can be exercised. The order of detention does not indicate in what manner the maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the detenu. Mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the order of detention would not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard. It is well settled that there is a fine distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'. Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to be missing in the order of detention."

Background The detenu faced three FIRs registered at Dhoolpet and Narayanguda Police Stations in 2024 under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act for trafficking in ganja. She was arrested on 12.12.2024 and was in judicial custody when a subsequent crime was registered on 17.12.2024. The detaining authority recorded that earlier bail grants had not deterred the detenu and stated its apprehension that "you would again resort to similar unlawful activities of peddling of Ganja" if released. The Collector found the detenu to be a "drug offender" under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1986 and passed the detention order as a "last resort", which the General Administration Department approved and later confirmed.

Counsel for the appellant argued that no material showed the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to public order as defined by Section 2(a) and that preventive detention could not substitute for ordinary criminal remedies such as cancellation of bail. The State relied on antecedents and recent registrations to assert a threat to public order and placed reliance on precedents permitting preventive detention where subjective satisfaction was recorded.

The Court examined the detention order and found that it chiefly rested on the existence of three offences and the detaining authority's apprehension about future misconduct, without demonstrating how those acts affected public order or public health as required by the statute. The Court referred to earlier decisions which cautioned against invoking preventive detention where ordinary criminal remedies remained available and where the order reflected extraneous considerations. It concluded that the order manifested an intention to detain "at any cost" and lacked the requisite material to sustain preventive detention.

The detention order dated 10.03.2025 and the High Court judgment dated 28.10.2025 were quashed. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in other proceedings. The appeal was allowed with parties directed to bear their own costs.

Case No.: 2026 INSC 41 (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.18223 of 2025) Case Title: Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Kumar Vaibhaw, Advocate