CHERUKURI MANI v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDH~A

The husband of the appel, lant was alleged to have been involved in several cases of theft of Government and private properties as well as cases of destruction of public properties and his anti social a~tivities were D harmful to the society and general public and 11 cases were registered against him. The Collector issued a preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 stating that the. husband of the appellant has got all the attributes to be called as a 'goonda' as envisaged under Section 2(g) of the Act. 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 by the Advisory Board. The Collector also indicated that the Government, G 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. After having served with a copy of the .detention order along with the grounds of detention, the husband of the F E H \ ' 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. A appellant was taken into custody by Respondent No. 3 and from 5th October, 2013 he was detained in the Central Prison. On the basis of the recommendation of the Collector and after obtaining a report from the Advisory Board, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.0.Rt. B No. 4803, dated 6th November, 2013 and directed detention of the detenu for a period of twelve monttis from the date on which he was detained i.e. 5th October, 2013. When the appellant challenged the detention of her . husband before the High Court in a habeas corpus Writ c Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court . . Allowing the appeal, the Court D E HELD: 1. 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 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 Court has dismissed the writ petition at the threshold itself. [Para 7] [756-G-H; 757-A-B]

#2. Section 3 of the Act empowers the detention of F 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. A reading of the provision makes it clear that the State Government, District Magistrate or G Commissioner of Police are the authorities, conferred with the power to pass orders of detention. The only difference is that the order of detention passed b,Y the Government would remain in force for a period of three months in the first instance, whereas similar orders H passed by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of CHERUKURI MANI v. CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS 753 . B Police shall remain in force for an initial period of 12 days. A The continuance of detention beyond 12 days would depend upon the appro.val to be accorded by the Government in this regard. Sub-section (3) makes this aspect very clear. Section 13 of the Act mandates that the maximum period of detention under the Act is 12 months. 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 wofild in lhe first instance be in, force for a period of three months. The Government alone is conferred with the power to extend c the period, beyond three months. Such extension, however, cannot be for a period, exceeding three months, at a time. It means that, if the Government intends to detain an individual under the Act for the m·aximum peri'd of 12 months, there must be an initial order of 0 detenlion for a period of three months, and at least, three orders of extension for a period not exceeding three months each. The expression "extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time" assumes significance in this regard. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [757-H; 758-A-F] E

#3. Restriction of initial period of detention to three months, is nothing but implementation of the mandate contained in Clause (4)(a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Where the law prescribes a thing l:o be done in F a particular manner following a· particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. When the provisions of Section 3 of the Act clearly mandated the authorities to pass an order of G detention at one time for a period not exceeding three months only, the Government Order in the instant case, directing detention of the husband of the appellant for a period of twelve months at a stretch is clear violation of the prescribed manner and contrary to the provisions of H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. A B law. The Government cannot direct or extend the period of detention up to the maximuin 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. [Paras 14 and 15] [759-G, H; 760-D-G]

#4. Normally, a person who is detained under the provisions of the Act is without facing trial which in other C 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 Jlas D specifically provided the mechanism "Advisory Board" to review the detention of a person. 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 E detention for the maximum period of twelve months straightaway cannot be sustained in law. Undisputedly, the detenu was detained on 5th October, 2013 which means that he remained under detention for about seven months at a stretch without any periodical review as F envisaged by law. The detention order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in this case is in contravention to the provisions of law. On this ground alone, without going into other issues, we thought this appeal has to be allowed and the order of detention has G to be quashed. [Paras 16 and 17] [760-H; 761-A-E]