CHERUKURI MANI vs. CHIEF SECR.,GOVT.OF A.P..

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 2531 OF 2014 CHERUKURI MANI … APPELLANT W/O NARENDRA CHOWDARI VERSUS THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF … RESPONDENTS ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, who is the wife of one Cherukuri Narendra JUDGMENT Chowdari—detenu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleging that her husband has been unauthorisedly detained and the detention order passed was illegal and sought his release. The writ petition was th dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 28 October, 2013 stating that until and unless the competent Court of law decides the order of detention as illegal and invalid, it cannot be Page 1 2 said that it is unauthorized detention. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal

Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 2) issued a preventive detention th order on 30 September, 2013, under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) stating that the husband of the appellant (detenu) has got all the attributes to be called as a ‘goonda’ as envisaged under Section 2(g) of the Act. It is also mentioned that he was involved in several cases of theft of Government and private properties as well as cases of destruction of public properties and his JUDGMENT antisocial activities are harmful to the society and general public and referred 11 cases registered against him. 4. It is significant to note that while passing the detention order, the Collector made it clear that the detenu has a right to make a representation to the Government under Section 8(1) of the Act and the case will be referred to the Advisory Board for review and opinion under Section 10 of the Act and the detenu can be heard personally Page 2 3 by the Advisory Board. The Collector also indicated that the Government, on the basis of opinion of the Advisory Board, may confirm and continue the detention for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of detention. 5. After having served with a copy of the detention order along with the grounds of detention, the husband of the appellant was taken th into custody by Respondent No. 3 and from 5 October, 2013 he was detained in the Central Prison, Rajahmundry till date. 6. It appears that on the basis of the recommendation of the Collector and after obtaining a report from the Advisory Board, the th Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt. No. 4803, dated 6 November, 2013 and directed detention of the detenu for a period of th twelve months from the date on which he was detained i.e. 5 JUDGMENT October, 2013. 7. When the appellant challenged the detention of her husband before the High Court in a habeas corpus Writ Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order. In our considered view, when habeas corpus writ petition is filed, even though the petitioner has not properly framed the petition and not sought appropriate relief, it is expected from the Court to at least go into the Page 3 4 issue and decide on merits. Normally, in such matters where liberty of a person is at stake, the Courts would take a liberal approach in the procedural aspects. But unfortunately in the instant case, the High

8. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that as per the provisions of the Act, the period of detention in the first instance shall not exceed more than three months and a person cannot be put under detention without facing trial for a long period. When the husband of the appellant—detenu is already facing charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code in around 11 cases, the invocation of detention laws against him and not permitting him to face the trial is bad in law and it is also contrary to Clause (4)(a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He further JUDGMENT contended that the Government Order directing detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months is contrary to the proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, and on this ground alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. To support his arguments, he strongly relied on decisions of this Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Munagala Yadamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 386. Page 4 5 9. On behalf of the State, Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel supported the detention order and sought time till after summer vacation.

Government has the power to pass a detention order to detain a person at a stretch for a period of 12 months under the provisions of the Act. 11. To answer the above issue, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the detention of certain category of persons, as defined under the Act. Apart from conferring of power, the section regulates the manner of passing the orders of detention as well as their duration. It reads thus: Section 3: Power to make orders detaining certain persons : (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. JUDGMENT (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the Government are satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if Page 5 6

Page 6 7 clear. Section 13 of the Act mandates that the maximum period of detention under the Act is 12 months. 13. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is very clear in its purport, as to the operation of the order of detention from time to time. An order of detention would in the first instance be in force for a period of three months. The Government alone is conferred with the power to extend the period, beyond three months. Such extension, however, cannot be for a period, not exceeding three months, at a time. It means that, if the Government intends to detain an individual under the Act for the maximum period of 12 months, there must be an initial order of detention for a period of three months, and at least, three orders of extension for a period not exceeding three months each . The expression JUDGMENT " extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time " assumes significance in this regard. 14. The requirement to pass order of detention from time to time in the manner referred to above, has got its own significance. It must be remembered that restriction of initial period of detention to three months, is nothing but implementation of the mandate contained in Page 7 8

Page 8 9 Government cannot direct or extend the period of detention up to the maximum period of twelve months, in one stroke, ignoring the cautious legislative intention that even the order of extension of detention must not exceed three months at any one time. One should not ignore the underlying principles while passing orders of detention or extending the detention period from time to time. 16. Normally, a person who is detained under the provisions of the Act is without facing trial which in other words amounts to curtailment of his liberties and denial of civil rights. In such cases, whether continuous detention of such person is necessary or not, is to be assessed and reviewed from time to time. Taking into consideration these factors, the Legislature has specifically provided the mechanism “Advisory Board” to review the detention of a person. JUDGMENT Passing a detention order for a period of twelve months at a stretch, without proper review, is deterrent to the rights of the detenu. Hence, the impugned Government Order directing detention for the maximum period of twelve months straightaway cannot be sustained in law. 17. Even though, learned senior counsel appearing for the State sought for an adjournment beyond summer vacation, we are unable to accept his prayer for the simple reason that maximum part of the Page 9 10

Page 10