TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the crucial role of advisory boards in preventive detention cases.
EXPLANATION:
- The court highlighted the need for these boards to act as independent entities, safeguarding personal liberty from arbitrary state actions.
- This analysis delves into the key aspects of the judgment, emphasizing the significance of advisory boards and the parameters for justifiable preventive detention.
Advisory Boards as Safeguards:
- The Supreme Court rejected the notion of advisory boards as mere rubber stamps for the government.
- Emphasized their role as ‘safety valves’ against arbitrary state power, ensuring the protection of personal liberty.
- Highlighted the necessity for robust scrutiny of detention orders by qualified individuals, as mandated by Article 22 of the Constitution.
Scrutiny and Review Process:
- Advisory boards mandated to review detention orders every three months under preventive detention laws.
- Required to consider all relevant material, solicit additional information, and afford the detainee an opportunity to be heard.
- Emphasized the importance of submitting detailed reports justifying the necessity of detention.
Case Analysis: Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (1986):
- The judgment stemmed from an appeal against detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.
- The appellant was accused of threatening public order by engaging in criminal activities, specifically targeting women.
- The court scrutinized the grounds for detention, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and not mere hypotheses.
Distinction between ‘Public Order’ and ‘Law and Order’:
- Justice Pardiwala delineated between the concepts of public order and law and order.
- Public order disturbances extend beyond individual incidents to impact the larger community or society.
- Emphasized that preventive detention should not substitute for the failure of regular law enforcement mechanisms.
Criteria for Justifiable Preventive Detention:
- Activities deemed prejudicial to public order must transcend the capacity of ordinary laws to address them effectively.
- Preventive detention should not be invoked solely due to the inability of law enforcement agencies to manage law and order situations.
Quashing of Detention Order:
- The Supreme Court quashed the detention order against the appellant.
- Found lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offenses, suggesting arbitrary detention based on suspicion.
- Upheld the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the right to due process in preventive detention cases.
