Summary
Preventive detention based on incidents nine to fourteen years old was invalid. The live and proximate link between past conduct and the present preventive need had snapped. Merely referring to two more recent cases did not cure reliance on stale grounds. Judicial review could examine their statutory relevance without substituting the court’s satisfaction for that of the executive.
Issues
- Whether stale incidents could support the 2016 preventive detention.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(a) and 3, Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986Detention requires a present preventive connection with maintenance of public order. (¶ 14–16)
Held
- The four incidents actually relied on dated from 2002–2007; later registration of FIRs did not make those incidents proximate. Two other cases merely mentioned were not the authority’s detention grounds. (¶ 7–13)
- Courts can examine whether subjective satisfaction rests on relevant, rationally probative material. Reliance on the exceptionally stale incidents vitiated this order, including for malice in law without requiring proof of actual malicious intent. (¶ 17–23)
- The detenu was already in custody in a case concerning a stale incident. Preventive detention could not be justified in these circumstances merely to forestall bail. (¶ 24–25)
Result
Appeal allowed; detention order and High Court judgment set aside.